Oral
Answers to
Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

A417 Brockworth to Cowley

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What recent assessment he has made of progress on improving the A417 missing link between Brockworth and Cowley; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: I have taken a personal interest in this project, which I regard as an important part of our infrastructure that needs to be addressed, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it is moving forward. Highways England announced its preferred route for the scheme in March, and it is now preparing for the next stage of the planning process, statutory consultation, followed by a development consent order process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Sadly, there have been 10 fatalities and 123 casualties on that road in the last four years for which figures are available, so the improvement is desperately needed. Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to evaluate the Labour party’s proposals to scrap the roads programme, which would mean hundreds of road schemes such as this never being built and motorists being hugely inconvenienced?

John Bercow: But that is not a matter for the Secretary of State—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

John Bercow: No, no—[Interruption.] Order. Resume your seat. We are talking about Government policy. If the Secretary of State wants to say something about Government policy, he can, but he cannot ruminate or pontificate on Opposition policy. That is not a matter for the Secretary of State.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Chris Grayling: Labour Members say “Hear, hear!” because they do not want to hear the truth, which is that we are putting in place schemes that will benefit road safety, that will improve journey times and that will be good for our economy. The A417 improvement is a much needed scheme that does all those things, and it will be an essential part of this Government’s future planning. It is simply a tragedy that Labour wants to scrap it.

John Bercow: I call Mr Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was eager to speak to Question 2.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman was ahead of himself, not for the first time and probably not for the last.

Electric Vehicles: Infrastructure

Peter Aldous: What steps he is taking to improve charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

Andrew Lewer: What steps he is taking to improve charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

Michael Ellis: We are consulting on all new build homes in England being fitted with charge points, and we want all new public rapid charge points also to offer pay-as-you-go card payments from the spring of 2020. Our grant schemes and the £400 million charging infrastructure investment fund will see the installation of thousands more public charge points, adding to the 20,000 already installed.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that reply. At sea, Lowestoft is at the forefront of the transition to a low carbon economy—the world’s largest offshore wind farm is being built just off our coast—but the town also wants to be in the driving seat on land. Will the Minister outline the initiatives that have been put in place to ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure can be rolled out quickly and early in Lowestoft, and that the work will not just be focused in large cities?

Michael Ellis: With my hon. Friend as the Member for Lowestoft, I believe that it is doing very well indeed on land, at sea and in the air. We have to remember that the majority of electric vehicle drivers charge their cars at home overnight or at the workplace. We want people across the country, and especially in Lowestoft, to switch to electric vehicles, and we want to leverage private sector investment to provide a self-sustaining public network that is affordable, reliable and accessible. As my hon. Friend knows, the market is best placed to identify the right locations.

Andrew Lewer: That was slightly more pointed than I expected. At the moment, there is very little provision of electric car charging points in my constituency of Northampton South; I have only been able to find one in the whole constituency. What schemes does the Minister have planned for urban constituencies such as mine, and his?

Michael Ellis: I am very familiar with my hon. Friend’s constituency, which neighbours my own. I am pleased to say that in February this year Northampton Borough Council was awarded £45,000 under the Government’s ultra low emission taxi infrastructure competition to deliver two rapid charge points dedicated to electric taxis and private hire vehicles. He is right to focus on this issue, but we have a number of schemes that can be  accessed by electric vehicle drivers across the country, including in Northampton South and Northampton North. The electric vehicles home charge scheme is just one of them; the on-street residential scheme is another. Local authorities are receiving significant funding to install recharging points, including with these new technologies.

Faisal Rashid: E-bikes will offer enormous benefits for transport, health, wellbeing, the environment and green business growth, especially if Government funding is made available to support them. What steps is the Minister taking to incentivise the use of e-bikes?

Michael Ellis: I have recently been on an e-bike, and it was very good on hills. E-bikes are of great assistance to people with health and mobility issues. We want to encourage their use, and we are doing just that. We are also investing vast sums in cycle lanes and road infrastructure improvements, and we are focusing on safety. There is more to be done, as always, but we have done an awful lot more than Labour did in this area.

John Bercow: It is very interesting to learn of the personal experience of the Minister, but all that I can say at this stage is that he is challenging our vivid imaginations. I was going to call Mr Stringer. Are you still interested, sir? Get in there.

Graham Stringer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was surprised to find that the charging sockets are not standardised, either on cars or on charging points. Would it not make sense to regulate to standardise them?

Michael Ellis: Of course, the market has been leading in this area, and we now have 20,000 publicly accessible charging points, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We know from the charging of other devices that we use every day that they do not all share the same fixtures, but the fact of the matter is that we have an advanced system in this country. We are growing it, and we will be providing more funding in this area and looking to do more.

Andrew Bridgen: Contrary to popular myth, most particulates do not come from modern diesel engines, but from wear between the vehicle’s tyres and the road. Given that electric vehicles tend to be heavier than their conventional counterparts owing to the weight of the batteries, which increases tyre wear and road wear, does the Minister have any concerns that the increased use of electric vehicles may lead to increasing levels of particulates?

John Bercow: Interesting—the hon. Gentleman is giving the impression of knowing something.

Michael Ellis: And what a good impression it is, Mr Speaker. The reality is that we all know that electric vehicles are tremendously advantageous to the economy and, frankly, to the environment, and there is work to be done. My hon. Friend is quite right to mention particulates, and we are looking at that issue, but electric vehicles provide massive benefits to the environment.

Karl Turner: It is a sad day, because rumour has it that this is the Secretary of State’s last outing at the Dispatch Box. He is the gift that keeps on giving, but that is not funny because he has cost the country billions. Earlier this month, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders announced that sales of low-emission cars in the UK have fallen for the first time in two years. The SMMT’s chief executive, Mike Hawes, described the decline as a “grave concern” and blamed the Secretary of State’s confusing policies and premature removal of purchase incentives. Will the right hon. Gentleman finally apologise for his political blunders that have cost the taxpayer £2.7 billion?

Michael Ellis: As usual, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The fact is that the Secretary of State has been leading the way in this area, and the Department for Transport is also a world leader. Some 200,000 ultra low emission battery, electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles are registered in the UK, and we are the second-largest market for ultra low emission vehicles in the European Union, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Desmond Swayne: How will it work for houses that do not have a driveway or reserved on-street parking, and what does the Minister mean by the term “en suite”?

Michael Ellis: Did I say “en suite”? We are investing in technologies and supporting innovations in on-street architecture—[Laughter.] We might invest in “en suite” architecture as well, but that would not be for my Department. Fixtures have been fitted to streetlamps, for example, and there have been innovations in contactless charging. Businesses around the country are working on various mechanisms, and this Department is supporting many of them with funding to help them to invent new technologies.

London Low Emission Zone: HGVs

David Linden: What recent discussions he has had with Transport for London on the effect of the roll-out of the London low emission zone on showpeople who drive heavy goods vehicles.

Michael Ellis: Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London and is delivered by Transport for London. Ministers and officials meet TfL regularly to discuss a range of topics. I have not discussed the effect of the roll-out of the London low emission zone on showpeople who drive heavy goods vehicles.

David Linden: I am sure that the Minister is aware that under section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, showpeople have a number of exemptions and concessions. There is a possibility that showpeople could get an exemption from low emission zones in recognition of their lifestyle and businesses. Will the Minister encourage Transport for London to look favourably at that and make sure that we are supporting these people?

Michael Ellis: Yes I will. The hon. Gentleman alludes to the fact that Transport for London has agreed a 100% exemption for some showpeople using adapted vehicles from both the ultra low emission and low emission zones. The detail of that is up to the Mayor of London, not the Government, but I understand that the Mayor’s office is agreeing a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter, and I wish him well in that.

Blue Badge Scheme: Hidden Disabilities

Mike Wood: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the blue badge scheme for people with hidden disabilities.

Michael Ellis: From 30 August 2019, the blue badge scheme will include non-visible as well as visible disabilities. This change will be assessed 12 months after implementation, using feedback form the public, stakeholders and local authorities who administer the scheme. We will be tracking how many badges are awarded under the new criteria.

Mike Wood: I welcome the £1.7 million that has been allocated to councils to implement the new regulations, but will the Minister encourage local councils to spend that money on autism training for assessors, so that they can have a better understanding of how autism can affect people’s ability to travel?

Michael Ellis: Yes I will. My hon. Friend is right: the £1.7 million of funding is to support local authorities in the administration of the scheme. Local authorities can use their share of the funding to train assessors on specific conditions such as autism. We will let local authorities make the actual decisions on how the money can be used most effectively to support the implementation of the new regulations, but I hope that local authorities will look sympathetically at the difficulties faced by people with autism.

Emma Hardy: I am sure that the whole House is keen to improve accessibility for people with all disabilities, which is why I am sure that the Minister will join me in condemning TransPennine Express and its decision to close the gate at Hull Paragon station, which is making it much more difficult for people with disabilities to access the station.

Michael Ellis: I am sorry to hear about that. I will raise the matter with the rail Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—and perhaps he will write to the hon. Lady about it.

Scott Mann: While the £1.7 million is welcome, may I ask for advice and guidance for local authorities who might come under increasing pressure from the huge number of new blue badge applications? What advice can the Minister to give to local authorities such as Cornwall?

Michael Ellis: This is a matter for local authorities and they can exercise their discretion, depending on the circumstances in their particular area. I appreciate that  there is a demand for the blue badge scheme; that means that the scheme works very effectively. It assists people who have mobility issues, and that is what it is designed to do. It is right that people with non-visible disabilities are also covered by the scheme. That has been the case heretofore, but this highlights the issue and we encourage local authorities to work with the system.

Jamie Stone: I am a Scottish MP, but the blue badge scheme is UK-wide. As the Chamber knows, my wife is disabled and nothing is a bigger pain than to run my wife to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness and find that all the parking spaces have been taken or, worse still, that people who do not have the badge have taken spaces. Will the Government ensure that people who abuse the system are sorted out and brought to account as quickly as possible?

Michael Ellis: Yes. First, the fraudulent use of blue badges is a criminal matter and that can be dealt with accordingly, as one would expect. As for those who park in disabled parking spaces when they are not permitted to do so, such infractions ought to be dealt with by the supervisory authority, and that can be by way of fines.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister further outline what training must be undertaken by those responsible for parking enforcement to ensure that people entitled to a blue badge for hidden illnesses are not interrogated by traffic wardens when their blue badge is clearly on display?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We expect those who are charged with enforcing our parking regulations to be sympathetic to these issues and alive to the fact that there will be people with non-visible disabilities who are perfectly entitled to use a blue badge.

Community Transport Operators

Karin Smyth: What steps his Department is taking to support community transport operators.

Nusrat Ghani: Community transport is incredibly important for both urban and rural communities, and in March the Department took steps to protect community transport operators so that they can carry on doing their valuable work. We have clarified, in guidance, the scope of two exemptions from the EU regulation on operator licensing, and we have enacted new legislation. We will revise the guidance on the non-commercial exemption once the High Court has reached a decision, and will carry out a review of the domestic permit regime later in 2019.

Karin Smyth: I thank the Minister for her answer. She is right: the service is very valuable. In parts of Bristol South, 40% of people do not own a car or van, so public transport is crucial to getting about in daily life. Will she join me in congratulating Bristol Community Transport on running the M1 metrobus service this year? Does she  agree that local authorities need more funding to support bus services, particularly in communities where there are low incomes and older people?

Nusrat Ghani: I am more than happy to celebrate the work of Bristol Community Transport; Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership, which is in or close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, also does incredibly good work. We have done everything we can in the Department to be as flexible as possible, so that those with community transport contracts in constituencies can carry on doing their work. We provide substantial financial support for all public transport, but of course I will always aim to secure even more funding, including in the next spending review.

Priti Patel: Community transport in Essex would benefit from investment in Essex’s roads, and particularly from the dualling of the A120 and the widening of A12. Will the Minister work with the Department to ensure that both those schemes feature in the road investment strategy 2?

Nusrat Ghani: That is a fantastic question. My right hon. Friend has captured my imagination, and that of the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). I believe that the schemes are in the pipeline, and if I cannot meet my right hon. Friend, no doubt the roads Minister will, to make sure that the schemes are carried forward.

Alan Brown: Over 90% of community transport operators in Scotland use section 19 or section 22 permits, but changes to legislation will lead to onerous conditions regarding driver qualifications and bus adaptations, and that threatens the existence of these important service providers. Coalfield Community Transport in my constituency believes that the measures will give them up-front costs of £50,000. Does the Minister accept how real these risks are, and will she meet me to discuss the issue and changes that could be made?

Nusrat Ghani: I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, because I am concerned about the cases that he has raised. I am also concerned that information is not filtering through, and that is creating panic among community transport operators that need not be felt. We have spent a lot of time working with community transport operators and local authorities; I have a list in front of me of everyone to whom we have spoken. Operators can also go on the community transport website, which has further clarification of what needs to be done. If they hold a licence at present, they are eligible to carry on doing their work.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) want to make a second inquiry? No? I do not want to tempt him beyond his natural appetite. I had him down for two questions, but we are grateful for his self-denying ordinance. In that case, we probably just about have time to include Mr Farron.

Tim Farron: In places such as Sedbergh and Dent, community bus services have become a lifeline for people who would otherwise be isolated from the communities around  them, and I am massively grateful to the volunteers who make those services possible. Community bus services have become essential because over the past 30 years Governments of all colours have chosen to stop seeing the provision of bus services as a service at all, and have allowed rural communities such as mine to become increasingly cut off and stranded. Will the Minister agree to launch a new transport deal for rural communities, with new investment for bus services that are regular, reliable and affordable?

Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Gentleman has mixed up two distinct types of services: community transport, and regular bus services. Over £1 billion is spent on concessionary travel, and over £250 million directly on bus service operators grant. If he wants to sit down with me and get further ideas on how his local authority can secure a partnership, I am more than happy to do that.

Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy

Matt Western: What recent estimate he has made of the resources required to implement his Department’s cycling and walking investment strategy.

John Woodcock: What recent estimate he has made of the resources required to implement his Department’s cycling and walking investment strategy.

Michael Ellis: Spending on cycling and walking in England has doubled from £3.50 per head to around £7 per head over the current spending review period. The Government estimate that around £2 billion will have been spent on measures to implement the strategy between 2016 to 2021 alone.

Matt Western: While I welcome that increased investment, the Department has acknowledged that “current policy and resource levels will not enable the current aim of doubling the number of trips made wholly or partially by cycling to be met”, including in my own constituency of Warwick and Leamington. Will the Minister meet me and my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), to discuss a particular project, namely the Kenilworth to Leamington cycle route, which is in desperate need of investment?

Michael Ellis: I am always very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I would point out, however, that as well as the doubling of investment in cycling and walking and the £2 billion, we channel money from the Department for Transport and Government to local authorities such as his so that there is even more money for them to allocate to cycling and walking.

John Woodcock: But will the Minister publish the evidence his Department has commissioned? Surely that will show that the current levels of investment will not be sufficient to meet the target. When he recognises that, will he direct his attention to the disused railway that Highways England wants to turn into a cycle lane between Ulverston canal and Greenodd roundabout?

Michael Ellis: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Morecambe Bay cycle way. The Government recognise the benefits of such schemes, which may be able to provide opportunities to increase active travel and significant benefit to the local economy, as well as to health and the environment. We have recently provided more than £20 million of support to Sustrans, to improve stretches of the national cycle network. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, but the reality is that we are putting considerable investment into cycling across the country.

Robert Courts: I have seen the benefits of active travel and have been using the A44 cycle path from Woodstock to Oxford, but I want to see the same in other areas of my constituency, not least Eynsham, to alleviate, among other things, the congestion on the A40. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how that strategy might help the B4044 community path?

Michael Ellis: I know that my hon. Friend is an avid cyclist and he sets an example of active travel that is beneficial both to the environment and to health. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the route he has in mind.

Gregory Campbell: Studies now show that, even among older people, the resumption of an active lifestyle, including cycling and walking, helps counter the onset of dementia. Will the Minister do more to highlight that, to try to get older people even more active?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There is no doubt that life expectancy increases among older people who are active. In fact, that is the case across all ages. We support that, which is why considerable investment is going into cycling and walking. I very much accept that the more active any person of any age is, the more likely it is that they will be in good health.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Transport Secretary, has made clear the scale of the challenge we face with climate change and the urgent need to cut emissions from transport. Increasing cycling and walking is particularly important if we are to avoid a climate crisis. If cycling levels in the UK were the same as those in the Netherlands, carbon dioxide emissions from cars would fall by one third. Given the scale of the threat from climate change, why are the Government not doing more to avert this crisis?

Michael Ellis: The Government are leading the way in promoting the use of cycling and walking. We have doubled investment and it absolutely dwarfs that of the Labour party when it was last in government. The fact is that we have put £2 billion into cycling and walking, which is a monumental increase on Labour’s investment. We recognise that it is good both for the environment and for health, including mental health and wellbeing. That is why the investment is going in. We also have to factor in safety—we are very focused on that. As we have reiterated time and again, this is a priority for the Department.

Matt Rodda: The Government have once again shown their lack of commitment to tackling the real problems facing this country. The Secretary of State has failed to meet his own targets for encouraging cycling, and the Department for Transport is spending just 1.5% of its budget on walking and cycling. The Minister’s attempts to dress up what is clearly a failing policy are, quite frankly, deeply disappointing and show that the Government are simply not capable of providing  the leadership needed to tackle climate change, which is the greatest threat to our country and, indeed, to humanity. When will the Secretary of State and his colleagues get a grip and show some leadership?

Michael Ellis: There is £50 million for Bikeability training for schoolchildren; £101 million for cycling infrastructure for cycle ambition cities; £80 million for the local authority access fund; £85 million from Highways England for cycling and walking; £597 million from the local growth fund; £77 million for local road schemes; £194 million from the integrated transport block for micro-enhancement projects—I shall keep going until Mr Speaker stops me—£196 million from the highways maintenance refund; and some £500 million from a range of cross-Government infrastructure funds, so there are hundreds of millions of pounds of investment, and that is what the Department is doing.

John Bercow: I must say, having listened to the Minister I do not think I can take any more such excitement. It is almost too much.

Transport for Vulnerable Children: Driver Training

Tom Pursglove: What steps his Department is taking to support the provision of training on transporting vulnerable children and adults for people who drive (a) taxis and (b) private hire vehicles.

Nusrat Ghani: We work across Government to ensure that safeguarding practice is as safe as it can be in the taxi and private hire sector. The issue has been discussed at an inter-ministerial group chaired by the Home Secretary. The Government have committed to legislate for national minimum standards, which will include making it a legal requirement that licensees undertake safeguarding awareness training. However, I encourage all licensing authorities to act now and use their existing powers to protect passengers.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and to build on it, may I ask what plans her Department currently has to produce a standardised national training programme for people who transport vulnerable children and adults?

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend touches on an important piece of work that is being carried out across a number of Departments, including the Home Office and the Department for Education, and in local government. In the Department for Transport, we are looking to obtain the powers to create a national minimum standard, which will be quite high, and a national database, and to increase enforcement powers for traffic commissioners. Put together, all those things will ensure that the quality of service and safety for people when they enter a private hire vehicle is the same up and down the country.

Lilian Greenwood: We have known for a while that the Secretary of State does not run the railways, and yesterday he told the Transport Committee that
“we don’t really do buses”,
but the chair of the Government’s own task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing told us in March that he was “truly frightened” about the risk to the public under the current regulations. Thankfully, it seems that even the Secretary of State is not trying to dodge responsibility for legislating to protect passengers, but when will a Bill on taxi and private hire licensing be laid before Parliament?

Nusrat Ghani: The Chair of the Select Committee knows that I am just as passionate as she is about this issue within this part of my brief. I was hoping that we could start to legislate before the summer, and I now hope that I can crack on with it in the autumn. We have to remember that licensing sits with local licensing authorities. We are trying to put together a national database and to ensure that all the information is in one place, so that those who want to fish around to get a licence cannot do so. We are also increasing the traffic commissioners’ powers. All that work is in the pipeline, and I look forward to getting it done just as much as the hon. Lady does.

Strategic Road Network: Manchester to Sheffield

Ruth George: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the strategic road network between Manchester and Sheffield.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely accept that we need to improve the route between Manchester and Sheffield, and, indeed, we need to provide additional crossing points across the Pennines generally. That is why, in relation to the hon. Lady’s area, we have announced a £170 million package of improvements to the existing road link, including projects such as the Mottram moor link, to reduce congestion and improve safety and journey times. Construction on that will start next year. We are also going to smart-motorway the M62, and you will be aware, Mr Speaker, that we have started work on the dualling of the A66 further north. We are looking into ways to improve the links between east Lancashire and west Yorkshire and working with Transport for the North on the proposed trans-Pennine tunnel.

Ruth George: The Secretary of State’s confirmation of those projects is welcome, but fixing the strategic gap in economic productivity between Manchester and Sheffield will require a strategic road investment between the two cities, as Transport for the North has identified. Is the Secretary of State committing to prioritise that gap to unlock the potential £20 billion of economic productivity that could be unleashed?

Chris Grayling: I am clear that we need to deliver a much upgraded strategic road between Manchester and Sheffield—there is no doubt about that at all—as we do further north between east Lancashire and west Yorkshire, and further north still between Cumbria and Teesside, so I absolutely accept the hon. Lady’s point. She might,  though, like to have a gentle word with her Front-Bench colleagues, who, of course, have committed to scrap the road improvement schemes that we have in the pipeline.

Lee Rowley: As someone whose constituency borders the city of Sheffield, I say to the Minister that we need to get economic productivity moving in our areas, as was outlined by the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George). Does he agree that, for communities such as Barrow Hill and Staveley, the Staveley bypass, which is 90 years in the asking, would be a great idea for Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire?

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend is seeking funding from the housing infrastructure fund for that scheme. I have been to the area and seen what is needed. I think that it is a very good scheme, and I hope that his application is successful. The reality is that, if we are to drive economic growth in the northern part of the country, we need road improvements. Those who argue against road improvements are letting down the north.

Dan Jarvis: I declare an interest as a metro mayor. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) is absolutely right: the connectivity, both road and rail, between south Yorkshire and Greater Manchester is not fit for the 21st century. The 30 miles between Sheffield and Manchester is just about the longest 30 miles anywhere in England. It is good to hear from the Secretary of State that investment and work are taking place to address that, but does he agree that there is still more that we can do to improve that connectivity across the Pennines?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman: that route needs to improve; the M62 needs to improve; and the proposals for the trans-Pennine tunnel need to be taken forward. On rail, the Hope Valley line needs to be upgraded and then, of course, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the network that that will create, and the links that HS2 will bring, will be essential to unlocking the potential of Sheffield and the area around it.

Road Transport: Decarbonisation

Louise Haigh: What steps he is taking to decarbonise road transport.

Michael Ellis: It is the Government’s mission for all new cars and vans to be effectively zero emission by 2040. The Road to Zero strategy sets out the action that the Government are taking to support this mission, as well as the steps that they are taking to drive down emissions from conventional vehicles during the transition.

Louise Haigh: But the Committee on Climate Change made it crystal clear this month that the target for 2040 is simply in no way compatible with our international obligations under the Paris accord and advised that we bring it down to 2030, which would bring us in line with countries such as Norway and the Netherlands. Will the Minister explain to the House how that 2040 target is in any way compatible with the climate emergency that is facing this country now?

Michael Ellis: The move to zero-emission vehicles is the biggest technology upheaval to hit UK roads since the invention of the combustion engine. The Road to Zero strategy, which we published in July last year, sets out comprehensive plans to support this change and, frankly, the work that the Government are doing today will mean that they are handing the next generation a better, cleaner and greener Britain. That is crucial not only to improve the lives and health of people across Britain—it will do that—but to be able to meet the UK’s statutory climate change targets, and, frankly, the Government expect the transition to zero-emission transport to be industry and consumer led. Therefore, we are leading the way in this area and we have considerable ambitions. We are beating most countries around the world in terms of cleaner air, a better environment, zero-emission vehicles and a strong, clean economy.

Ed Vaizey: Accidents on major roads cause terrible traffic jams, which increases pollution. As the Minister knows, I have written to him quite recently about the promised improvements to the A34 to improve safety. I would be very grateful if he updated us today, or wrote to me as soon as possible, about when these improvements will be made.

Michael Ellis: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this matter of the A34 with me, but I have already written to him and it is in the post.

John Bercow: Gosh, I suspect the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is in a state of uncontrollable excitement in anticipation of the Minister’s letter.

Christine Jardine: Low emission zones are vital to decarbonising our cities. My constituency of Edinburgh West has two of the worst polluted roads in Scotland. At the moment, the city is consulting on a low emission zone, but it can work effectively only if all road transport, not just commercial, is decarbonised and moved out of the city altogether—not just moved from one area to another. Will the Minister commit to what we have already heard, which is that we need to decarbonise to clean up our cities—and we need to do it quicker than 2040?

Michael Ellis: The facts are clear: the United Kingdom is a global leader in zero-emission vehicles. In 2018, for example, the UK was the second largest market in new ULEVs in the EU. We were behind only Germany. One in five electric cars sold in Europe was made in the UK. We are leading the way on design and technology. We are in the top tier in this area, and we are doing everything that we can with a highly ambitious project towards 2040, which is only 20 years away.

Maria Caulfield: One of the best ways to decarbonise roads is to improve rail services, so will the Minister join me in congratulating Cooksbridge Area Rail Action Group, which has managed to secure an hourly rail service mid-week and, for the first time in years, on a Saturday, which will move more passengers in Lewes off the roads and on to the railways?

Michael Ellis: I very much congratulate my hon. Friend and her group for their work in this area. It will only serve to assist her constituents, residents of the local area and any visitors.

Andy McDonald: The best way of decarbonising road transport is to ensure that more people use public transport. It was therefore alarming to hear the Secretary of State tell the Select Committee on Transport yesterday that he thought that automated vehicles were the answer and that any modal shift should be incremental. Incremental? There is a climate emergency now and an incremental response will not cut it. Does not this show that the Secretary of State is not taking the climate crisis seriously?

Michael Ellis: That is quite wrong. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in charge of a record investment in rail. That form of public transport has seen huge sums of investment. In fact, we have invested across the board. The hon. Gentleman talks about the climate. This Government are doing more on that issue than countries around the world, and certainly far more than Labour ever did when it was in power. We are taking a multifaceted approach, and automated vehicles, public transport, electric vehicles and rail are also important in this regard. Rail investment from this Government beats them all.

Andy McDonald: I was delighted to hear that Andy Burnham has secured the recommendation of Transport for Greater Manchester to franchise bus services. Contrary to the nonsense spouted from the Government Benches, this has been done at the earliest possible moment following the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, and Liverpool will be next. Modal shift from car to bus will make an enormous contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Why, then, does the Secretary of State—perhaps as a parting gift—not do what a Labour Government will do and give every local authority the power to re-regulate their buses?

Michael Ellis: Every local authority already has the power. Andy Burnham and Labour in his area had that power for three years, and they did nowt about it. It was this Secretary of State who pushed through the Bus Services Act 2017.

Rail Services: Cheshire

Esther McVey: What recent progress he has made on improving rail services in (a) Tatton constituency and (b) Cheshire.

Andrew Jones: Since May, Cheshire’s passengers have received a new direct hourly service between Chester and Leeds, linking the two cities for the first time in many years. Services also started on the Halton curve after a gap of 40 years. Customers in my right hon. Friend’s area will benefit from Northern’s £500 million investment in new trains, which started being rolled out on 1 July.
Turning to stations, I had the pleasure of visiting Handforth station recently with my right hon. Friend. I am happy to say that it is one of the 73 stations in the Access for All programme that will receive an accessible route to and between platforms. The new £20 million Warrington West station is also due to open this autumn.

Esther McVey: I thank the Minister for the Access for All programme at Handforth station, which is much appreciated by the local community and community groups. However, Northern won the franchise for the  mid-Cheshire line in 2015, and the bid included a commitment to increase connectivity—from one to two trains an hour— between my constituency and Manchester. That was meant to happen in 2017. We are now in mid-2019 and it has not happened. I have heard the excuses from Northern and from Network Rail. What can the Minister do to ensure that there are no more excuses and that this line frequency occurs?

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend is a great champion for the commuters in her area. There is a commitment within the franchise to deliver additional services on the mid-Cheshire line, but this has proved to be very challenging operationally because of capacity issues in the area, particularly around Manchester and through Stockport. I have been clear that although I want to see the additional capacity delivered as soon as possible, this cannot be done at the expense of performance. Delivering a railway that passengers can rely on is the absolute priority. All options are being looked at to deliver these additional services. I will keep the House fully apprised of progress and this matter will be a priority for me.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for his support for the upgrading of the Ebbw Vale line. That part of the Wales and Borders franchise has complicated responsibility and funding issues. Will he meet me and Ken Skates, the Welsh Government’s Economy and Transport Minister, to tease out the complexities and seek investment for that important line?

Andrew Jones: I had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman only a few days ago, although I am, of course, very happy to have further meetings with him. I understand why he is making the case for that line. It is important for his constituency, which requires improved transport connections to address the economic difficulties faced there. I am very happy to continue to support the process.

Fuel Catalysts

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the use of fuel catalysts on vehicle emissions.

Chris Grayling: As one of the ways in which we can reduce emissions of both carbon and other substances emitted from motor vehicles, the potential benefits of fuel additives and catalysts are certainly an area of great interest. Clearly, we need to be certain that there is scientific evidence about whether an individual additive makes a difference or not, but I have tasked my officials with looking clearly at the issue again to see what additions to our fuel can make a difference in the immediate future.

Robert Halfon: May I briefly thank the Secretary of State for giving us junction 7A on the M11, for which we campaigned in Harlow for more than 30 years?
The all-party parliamentary group on fair fuel for UK motorists and UK hauliers is shortly to publish a report showing that fuel catalysts, produced here in the UK, are an immediate and highly effective way to reduce emissions in urban areas. The APPG estimates that the Exchequer would save about 10% in costs, with an overall reduction in Government vehicle NOx and particulate matter emissions of more than 50%. Will the Minister meet me and Howard Cox, of FairFuelUK, to discuss how we can work on that?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to have that meeting, and I look forward to the report with interest. Clearly, we should take any steps that we sensibly can to reduce emissions of both harmful particulates and carbon.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State realise the urgency of this issue? These technical innovations are good, but 1 million people are likely to die from poor, filthy air by 2040. When will he wake up? Why will he not admit that the V word—Volkswagen—should have changed the whole world in terms of emissions? He should have taken on the car producers and he has not.

Chris Grayling: One of the things that has happened in the past two years, of course, is the sharp fall in the sales of diesel vehicles. We are now looking at ways to continue the transition to low-carbon vehicles, moving away from diesel, which, for many years, and particularly under the last Government, was the No. 1 strategy for dealing with carbon. Of course we need to continue to clean up air, but under this Government we are introducing clean air zones around the country.

Northern Rail: Pacer Trains

Liz McInnes: What steps he has taken to ensure that Northern Rail removes from service all Pacer trains by the end of 2019.

Andrew Jones: We have seen positive progress, with the introduction of the first brand new trains on routes across the north for a generation. There are currently nine in passenger service; the hon. Lady may be interested to know that they will be serving Rochdale from autumn this year. Alongside the roll-out of new trains and the introduction of the refurbished trains, Northern Rail is working to remove Pacers from the network. The first of them will be removed in August—only a few weeks away.

Liz McInnes: The National Railway Museum in York wanted to put a Pacer train in its history section this year. It was unable to, because Northern Rail is still using them. Is it not time that Northern Rail stopped treating its passengers like second-class citizens and consigned Pacer trains to their rightful place in the museum?

Andrew Jones: That, of course, is exactly what is happening across the network of the north: the new trains have to come in before the old ones can come out. The hon. Lady will be aware of the engineering issue with the manufacture of the new trains, announced in April. That was all resolved, which is why the new trains are in service now. The fleet changeover has been delayed by a few weeks, but the majority of the fleet of old 142 Pacer class trains will be removed by the end of this year. A small number of the newer 144 class will be retained for a few weeks to maintain a smooth and reliable service.
But let us fast-forward a few months: there will be new train fleets from TPE, new and refurbished trains from Northern Rail and the roll-out of Azumas on the east coast main line. No Transport Minister in a generation has been able to say what I can say now: we will have new trains across the north. That has been delivered by  the Conservatives, catching up on the no-growth franchise that Labour gave the north and that served from 2004 until 2016.

Martin Vickers: Thankfully, Cleethorpes does not rely on too many Pacer units, but the Saturday-only service from Sheffield to Cleethorpes is provided by Pacers, and as they approach Cleethorpes station, they cross over the now-famous Suggitts Lane level crossing. The Minister is well aware of the problems that the high-handed actions of Network Rail have caused disabled people and local businesses. It now proposes to spend hundreds of thousands to resolve that. Would that money not be better spent elsewhere on the network where there is more danger and on reopening Suggitts Lane?

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend is ingenious in the way he brings Suggitts Lane into all Transport question sessions. He is a most diligent campaigner on this issue. Since it was last raised, I have met Network Rail and the regulator to discuss the issue, and I know that he has also recently met Network Rail. I look forward to seeing the output of those conversations, and we will take up the issue.

Rail Station Accessibility

Huw Merriman: What recent steps he has taken to improve accessibility at railway stations.

Nusrat Ghani: You may have noticed, Mr Speaker, that most of our rail infrastructure is Victorian. That is why we have made £300 million available for the Access for All programme, which will cover 73 stations over the next five years. We are also seeking nominations for  £20 million of funding for smaller-scale accessibility improvements for the mid-tier Access for All programme.

Huw Merriman: I thank my constituency neighbour for her response. Many MPs across the House met the Office of Rail and Road this week. We were delighted to hear that it fed into the Williams review that it thinks passenger assistance notice should be reduced from  24 hours to the same day. Does she agree that it should be possible for everybody, including those with mobility issues, to wake up in the morning and decide to use the train later that day?

Nusrat Ghani: I agree with my constituency neighbour. As a member of the Transport Committee, he will have heard a lot of evidence about how we can use new technology to make our rail network even more accessible. I have tasked the Rail Delivery Group with looking at the Passenger Assist app, so that it works in a way that he and I would accept, with live, up-to-date information about what is accessible on trains, including toilets, and the services needed in between.

Chris Elmore: May I press the Minister on accessibility? One thing that could be done to improve station safety is the closure of dangerous level crossings, including the one at Pencoed in my constituency. This has been an issue for years. There is support from the Welsh Government and local authorities. Following the  feasibility study by Bridgend County Borough Council, we need the DFT to allocate some funding, to ensure that the crossing is closed and new disability access is included.

Nusrat Ghani: If funding was denied in the last round of Access for All allocation, another application can be made. If not, I suggest that an application is made with match funding for the next tier of Access for All funding.

Engine Idling

Royston Smith: What steps he is taking to reduce levels of engine idling.

Chris Grayling: Mr Speaker, you will be aware that vehicle idling is a major factor in poor air quality. That is why we plan to launch a consultation on increasing fines for idling drivers. We will seek a range of views on changes that would be the biggest since 2002 and how we can work with local authorities to tackle the issue.

Royston Smith: Southampton, like many other cities, has poor air quality, and engine idling makes that worse, particularly on the Northam rail bridge in my constituency. I have written to the Secretary of State to support a bid to replace that bridge. When will he make a decision? Will he look favourably on our bid, and are we likely to be successful?

Chris Grayling: I am expecting to receive proposals from Transport for the South East at the end of July on the schemes that we prioritise for the major road network and large local majors funding for that area. I am certainly aware of the proposal in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is a potential candidate. I cannot anticipate the result, but he makes a good point about the way in which schemes like that can make a real difference to air quality. Those who seek to cancel improvements on our roads will make matters worse, not better.

Topical Questions

Daniel Zeichner: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: Although we have one of the safest railways in the world, we must never be complacent, and I hope that the thoughts of the whole House are with the family, friends and colleagues of the two Network Rail staff who lost their lives in the tragic accident in south Wales two weeks ago. There is an ongoing investigation into what happened. I have asked both the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and Network Rail to ensure that lessons are properly learned from that tragedy.

Daniel Zeichner: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments.
The £1.5 billion A14 improvement scheme is, I am told, the biggest civil engineering project in Europe. Highways England is brilliant at moving bridges and flyovers but hopeless at enforcing the diversions that should protect local people when the road is closed at night. Incredibly, it cannot even put traffic counters on  the roads affected. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me at 3 o’clock in the morning on King’s Hedges Road to count the HGVs? Failing that—if that offer is not attractive enough—will he talk with me about how we can end the misery for my constituents?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that I am not going to accept the hon. Gentleman’s offer to spend part of the night with him, but I will have a word with Highways England on his behalf and ask it to ensure that the impact on the surrounding area is lessened. No major project can be delivered without some disruption, but we do not want the disruption to be excessive or inappropriate.

Nigel Huddleston: Towns such as Evesham and Droitwich Spa in my constituency continue to grow, which puts considerable pressure on local roads. What is the Department for Transport doing to support small towns with their traffic management and traffic lights systems in order to ease congestion?

Michael Ellis: The Department has funded a significant number of local authorities to trial innovative technologies and share good practice. Some of the connected traffic management measures, including the use of sensors to provide real-time parking space availability, for example, are already being adopted more widely. We are encouraging local authorities to install more of these systems.

Rachael Maskell: Gareth Delbridge; Michael Lewis: today we pay homage to two rail workers who tragically lost their lives at work near Port Talbot. It is all the more shocking in the light of the report into the fatality of a track worker at Stoats Nest junction, which described Victorian methods of protection, brought about by casual labour, a zero-hours culture and the worker probably being fatigued, having had to work because his colleague had failed to turn up to work. It was clearly unsafe. Will the Secretary of State bring an immediate end to zero-hours contracts, as advised by the regulator, the Office of Rail and Rail, bring this work back in-house and end these exploitative and unsafe work practices?

Chris Grayling: I defend no unsafe work practices on the railways. I agree with the hon. Lady that the railways should always aspire to the highest safety standards. She should remember that we have the safest railways in Europe, but I am very clear, as I said in earlier remarks, that lessons need to be learnt when things go tragically wrong, as they have done on a small number of occasions in recent years, and I expect changes to be made as a result of the lessons that are learnt from those tragic incidents.

Ranil Jayawardena: The residents of Herriard in my constituency have campaigned for many years against the disruptive, antisocial behaviour of some motorcyclists on the A339. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about Herriard being included in the acoustic noise camera trial, and I hope that he might use his good offices to direct the consultants who have been commissioned by the Department for Transport. Will  he also separately commit to rolling them out to Herriard as early as possible if they are not part of the trial?

Michael Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. That experimental equipment is very interesting. The number of locations for the noise camera trials will be limited, because at the moment it is only experimental. We need to factor in such things as speed limits, road type, road gradient, accessibility and safety considerations. I cannot absolutely commit to Herriard having that experimental equipment at the moment, but my officials and I are well aware of Herriard’s willingness to contribute to the trials and we will definitely bear it in mind.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State has stated that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, EU regulation 2019/501 will allow UK drivers to continue to drive HGVs in the EU. That regulation has an end date of 31 December this year, so will he confirm that the 2020 vision under a no-deal Brexit for UK drivers, importers and exporters is one of chaos and uncertainty?

Chris Grayling: No, I will not confirm that. First, the Government’s policy is not to pursue a no-deal Brexit. We will continue under both our current and future leadership to pursue a deal with the European Union—that has been abundantly clear. However, both sides have equally been abundantly clear that we want trade to continue, and the European Union and we have both been very ready to say that we will allow the flow of hauliers to continue so that trade carries on.

Neil O'Brien: East Midlands Trains, my local rail users group and I are bidding for funds for a cycle hub at Market Harborough railway station. The Minister, who has recently visited, knows that many more people are taking that healthy way to the station in the morning. Will he look favourably on our bid?

Andrew Jones: I thoroughly enjoyed my recent visit to Market Harborough to see the work taking place there: the significant upgrade to services, the straightening of the line and a new station. The new east midlands franchise will deliver over £17 million of investment in station facilities across the route, including extra cycle spaces, 100 of which will be delivered at Market Harborough. I am very happy to champion that, and to encourage smooth and early delivery.

Patrick Grady: Is it true that the Secretary of State called the Road Haulage Association and advised it not to criticise his botched Brexit preparations in public? Is this the Government’s new policy for stakeholders: “Don’t criticise us or you’ll be left in the dark”?

Chris Grayling: No; the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood.

Bim Afolami: Luton Borough Council is the 100% shareholder of Luton airport, which yields about £26 million a year for the council. What action are the Government taking  to address the conflict of interest, where the Labour-run Luton Borough Council frequently gives the airport permission to flout planning permissions that it has itself imposed?

Chris Grayling: I understand the sensitivity, particularly for local Members of Parliament and local communities who see that joint role. I reassure my hon. Friend that there are very clear statutory rules on how a local authority can and cannot act when it owns a piece of land that is subject to a planning application. I give him that reassurance that clear rules are in place.

Stephen Hepburn: The Government are investing £56 billion in HS2, £18 billion in Crossrail and £9 billion on the west coast. When will the Minister have some consideration for the people of the north-east, who do not get anything?

Chris Grayling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the current £700 million upgrade to the east coast main line, the brand new trains arriving on the east coast main line, the new trains the Government are providing for the Newcastle-upon-Tyne metro, our plans to reopen the Blythe to Ashington rail line with financial support from Nexus, the opening of the last leg of motorway-grade road between Newcastle and London, and of course the mayor of Teesside’s exciting plans for his airport. One of the most extraordinary things I have come across recently is that the shadow Secretary of State proposes nationalisation in every field of transport except for his local airport, on which he is opposed to nationalisation. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let us hear Mr Pursglove. Blurt it out, man.

Tom Pursglove: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very welcome news that the Leyland bridge is to be rebuilt, but will the Minister put pressure on Network Rail to give a concrete finish date and to get the works on site started as quickly as possible?

Andrew Jones: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for their campaigning on this issue. This is an important issue locally. Network Rail has made progress in finalising the design for the bridge and will start work as soon as possible. I will contact Network Rail to find the most up-to-date information, put pressure on it for the earliest possible completion of this project and keep my hon. Friend informed.

Clive Betts: Three weeks ago, I went on a parliamentary visit to the Netherlands and had a tour of the port of Rotterdam. That one port alone is recruiting over 100 new vets to carry out the necessary regulatory checks in the light of a no-deal Brexit. Does that not demonstrate the scale of the cost of a no-deal Brexit and the likely delays from the checks that will be necessary?

Chris Grayling: It is not the Government’s policy to pursue a no-deal Brexit. It is the Government’s policy, under current and future leadership, to pursue an agreement with the European Union. That is what we want. We would all prefer to leave with a deal with the European Union, but that has got to be the right deal.

Stephen Kerr: I am, of course, delighted to welcome the new trains on the east coast main line, but when will they get to Stirling?

Andrew Jones: The new Azuma trains entered service on the Hull and Leeds routes in May this year. We will launch Edinburgh services on 1 August and they will be reaching destinations north of Edinburgh by the end of this year.

Richard Burden: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that in response to a survey by the Guide Dogs charity, 42% of assistance dog owners reported being refused access to taxis and minicabs because of their dogs. What is he going to do in practice to ensure that all drivers of taxis and minicabs receive disability equality training?

Nusrat Ghani: I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but that is actually already illegal. I am working with a number of charities, including Guide Dogs, to ensure they can complain effectively and that the local authorities handing out licences are far more diligent about who those licences go to. As I mentioned earlier, once we are able to put together a national database it will be a lot easier to stop people who have already broken the law from getting licences.

Maggie Throup: It appears that the introduction of the hybrid Bill for HS2 phase 2b has been delayed yet again, causing further uncertainty and stress to my residents and businesses. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that my constituents will receive a bespoke financial package, given that Long Eaton is grossly affected because the line goes straight through it, and put that on the face of the Bill?

Nusrat Ghani: I recognise my hon. Friend’s passionate and persistent campaigning on behalf of her constituents and the businesses in Erewash. I also recognise the disruption that HS2 causes for people’s lives and for properties. Support is provided through the statutory and non-statutory property compensation schemes, which aim to strike a good balance between ensuring fair compensation and protecting the public purse. A consultation on design refinement is running up until  6 September, and I urge my hon. Friend to make sure she puts forward her evidence.

Judith Cummins: The decision by Network Rail to shut the east coast main line on the bank holiday weekend is as baffling as it is nonsensical. Tens of thousands of people will be travelling to the north for our great sporting and cultural events, while rugby league fans will be heading to Wembley for the Challenge cup final. The economic impact on the north is likely to be significant. When was the Department first told about this decision, and will the Minister step in now to reverse it and prevent this misery for passengers?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely understand the hon. Lady’s concern—it is a very busy weekend. These things are always difficult to judge and to get right. I share some of her anxieties, and I have asked the Rail Minister to look, with Network Rail, at whether further ameliorations can be made that weekend to ease the pressure. Going  forward, I will ask the train companies and Network Rail to try to be careful to avoid some of the busiest peak weekends. We have to use periods such as Christmas and Easter, but I do understand the hon. Lady’s issue about the August bank holiday.

Alec Shelbrooke: For six years I have tried to work proactively with HS2 on the route going through my constituency, and had great success, only for HS2 now to produce a Bill that sees a viaduct tear through Rothwell Country Park. HS2 has now had the audacity to send me a letter saying, “We don’t think it affects your area”—that is to the MP for Elmet and Rothwell. What can the Minister do to make Labour-led Leeds City Council, which does not care about my constituents or about us having an inappropriate station location, make this route change? Quite frankly, I can no longer support the HS2 project as it stands.

Nusrat Ghani: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend can no longer support the project, because I know he understands the power of investing in infrastructure and how important this line is to ensure that communities and regions beyond London thrive going forward. I am disappointed that his local Labour-led council is not  working proactively with him. I would hope that it is able to petition, when the opportunity arises, and also to put its comments into the design refinement consultation, which is open until 6 September.

Bill Esterson: Yesterday, Highways England wrote to me to confirm that it is going ahead with the road through Rimrose valley, an area with some of the worst roadside emissions in the country. Why are the Government not proceeding with the option of rail? Putting more freight on rail addresses the urgent need to address the climate emergency. Why are they so complacent about this existential threat to the world?

Chris Grayling: It is precisely because we want to see more freight on rail that we are spending £48 billion on our railways over the next five years, looking to expand capacity. Of course, one of the things HS2 will do—I absolutely understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), and the HS2 Minister and I will look carefully at the issues in his constituency for him— is create extra space for freight on rail. None the less, better road links to our ports, and to the port of Liverpool in particular, are also an essential part of economic development for an area such as Merseyside.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Mel Stride: The business for the week commencing on 22 July will include the following:
Monday 22 July—Tributes to the Serjeant at Arms, followed by remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Tuesday 23 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Cableway Installations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion relating to the reappointment of an electoral commissioner, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019, followed by a general debate on body image and mental health.
Wednesday 24 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Legislative Grand Committee (England) and remaining stages of the Kew Garden (Leases) (No.3) Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on the role and sufficiency of youth services.
Thursday 25 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
At the conclusion of business, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Tuesday 3 September.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House. I do not know what he said to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but he is not in his place. I think it is because he would not allow the hon. Gentleman and the rest of MP4 to get into his car. However, we are pleased to see that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is present. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is, in fact, on a Select Committee trip.
There is one week to go, and the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has worked his charm. He has usurped the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and arranged a pre-recess Adjournment debate next week.
It seems that, just as the Leader of the House is hitting his stride, we will have a new Prime Minister. I have asked the Leader of the House this before, but will he tell us whether there will be a statement from the new Prime Minister that has not been included in the business for next week, or at least set out the timetable for what will happen next Wednesday, when the former Prime Minister will go to the Palace? I assume that the new Prime Minister will go to the Palace on the same day.
The Leader of the House said that we would return from the recess on 3 September. Is he able to say whether the House will sit throughout the conference recess?
The pound has fallen to its lowest level against the dollar in 27 months, and to its lowest level this year against the euro, because of the prospect of no deal. No  deal would have a damaging effect on research: EU research funding would cease overnight. In 2016, the nine Russell Group universities engaged in 50 large European collaborations; in 2018, the number fell to 20. The Leader of the House will have heard from Venki Ramakrishnan, the president of the Royal Society, how much more we get back when we collaborate with Europe in science projects.
Some Members seem to know more than the Chancellor. The Chancellor has said that there will be a £90 billion contraction in the economy if there is no deal, but someone who is not the Chancellor reckons that leaving without a deal would boost the economy by £80 billion. Who is right?
How is the Leader of the House getting on with setting up the Joint Select Committee that I asked about last week? We have received a Lords message about it, and I know that the Leader of the House was keen to respond to it
“this side of the recess”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 462.]
He also said that he was having discussions with his end of the usual channels. Will they be the same usual channels next week? We need a response urgently, because we need to do this for the good of our country.
Despite what you and the Leader of the House said last week, Mr Speaker, Prorogation is now becoming a major issue. The team of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) have confirmed that they are looking into the possibility of proroguing Parliament for up to two weeks in October. A member of the team has said:
“A number of ideas are under consideration, including this one.”
Friends of the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped to have a “simple trade pact” with the United States ready to go on the day of Brexit, 31 October, but the Secretary of State for International Trade said that a deal could not be agreed before then. He said:
“We can’t negotiate anything with the US until after we’ve left the European Union. It would be in breach of European law”.
Who is right?
The Government were defeated in the other place yesterday on an amendment relating to intentions to prorogue Parliament. Now both Houses have spoken. I know that the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill is due to come back to this House shortly, so can the Leader of the House categorically state that Prorogation will not happen, and that it is against the will of the House and democracy?
Mr Speaker, you kindly granted the urgent question yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). As Nazanin said, she went to visit her parents and has ended up in an asylum. This cannot be about a woman against a tanker; it is like a butterfly being crushed against a wheel. We say to the Iranian Government, “Show your humanity to an innocent woman and release her to her family.” And as you said yesterday, Mr Speaker, we won’t let go. I know that the Leader of the House has taken a keen interest in this matter: what update does he have for the House following the urgent question yesterday?
Ahead of the summer recess, I ask the Leader of the House to raise some matters with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Will he make representations to the Secretary  of State for Education to tell all parents of schoolchildren, when they are taking their children abroad, that female genital mutilation is illegal: it is not a cultural issue and it is not a religious issue; it is an assault. And I would like the Secretary of State for International Development to say to those who are carrying out this practice that they should retrain so that they help the young women, not hurt them.
As we celebrate Nelson Mandela International Day, marking someone who suffered a terrible injustice but worked for a better society, I am sure all hon. Members will join me in welcoming the Bank of England’s decision to have Alan Turing on the £50 note; he was a genius, and during world war two he was instrumental in breaking the German Enigma code. He has been credited with shortening the war by as much as two years, saving countless lives in the process, and it is terrible that he could not witness how much we value his life.
We are celebrating the moon landing, and I am sure everyone was excited when they saw Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon. I know I was; I was watching it on television in the sitting room and then ran out and looked at the moon and thought about the fact that someone was standing on it. I think I wanted to be an astronaut, but in the end I ended up here, which is not the Sea of Tranquillity. We should use our creativity and talent not to destroy each other, but for the good of all and our precious Earth.

Mel Stride: May I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and express, as she did, disappointment that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is not in his place? I had lined up numerous dreadful gags at his expense, which we will now probably never hear. I also thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the pre-recess Adjournment debate; I was pleased that we were able to accommodate that. She referred at one point to “hitting his stride”, but I thought we were going to outlaw all bullying and harassment in this place—I obviously have a wolf in sheep’s clothing opposite me.
I feel sure that there will be an opportunity for the House to hear from the new Prime Minister next week, although clearly I cannot comment on the precise circumstances that may pertain to that; that will be a matter for him, whoever he is.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the recess dates beyond 3 September, and what I would say in response is that that, once again, will be a matter for the new Prime Minister to decide upon, and whoever is the Leader of the House at that time will come forward and make the announcement in the usual way.
The hon. Lady raised a number of matters around no deal, and she asked whether I thought the Chancellor’s assessment that the impact of no deal will cost the economy £90 billion or that of another person—I think I know who that other person is—who suggested that it might actually add to the economy by some £80 billion was right; I suspect the answer lies somewhere between those two figures.
The hon. Lady also rightly raised yet again the issue of the Select Committee on no deal, and when that motion will be coming before the House. I am afraid that I have nothing to add today to what I have said  before on this subject, which is that I am engaged with our end of the usual channels and am keen to see that motion coming forward. At the earliest opportunity I will return to the House with further information on that.
The hon. Lady once again raised the issue of Prorogation, and of course there are a number of circumstances in which Prorogation may occur, but the essential principle here is that it should not occur simply as a device to exempt Parliament from the important decisions that there will be around no deal or a deal as we approach the end of October.
The hon. Lady, once again quite rightly, raised the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the news that she has now been moved to a psychiatric hospital. This is a lady who, as we know, went to Iran simply to visit friends and family. She has now been detained for around three years. That is totally unacceptable. As the hon. Lady pointed out, my office has been in close engagement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest update I have, as of tomorrow, is that discussions have been held at a senior level between the Foreign Office and the Iranian regime, and that we are again urging that Nazanin be released and returned to her family here in the United Kingdom. I will welcome every occasion on which the hon. Lady raises this matter because, like her, I believe it to be extremely important. She also raised the issue of female genital mutilation and made the important point that it is nothing less than an assault. She is absolutely right about that.
The hon. Lady also expressed her pleasure at the fact that Alan Turing will appear on the £50 note, and I share that, not just because of the huge contribution that he made to perhaps shortening the war with his code-breaking activities, but because this is indicative of how far we have advanced as a civilised society.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the moon landing and said that she had seen it on television. I find that extraordinary, given that it happened in 1969. She cannot possibly be old enough to have been cognisant of that event at the time, but we all, right across the House, celebrate that one giant step for the whole of mankind.

Bob Blackman: Over the past month, a group of Travellers ensconced themselves in my constituency, first at Anmer Lodge, then on to Hatch End playing fields, then on to Stanmore Marsh and then into Canons Park, finally ending up at Whitchurch playing fields. Harrow Council and the police have done everything they can to move them on swiftly, but the Travellers have left behind hundreds of thousands of pounds’-worth of damage to be cleared up after them. May we have a debate in Government time on what more can be done to expedite dealing with the illegal occupation of public land by groups of Travellers?

Mel Stride: I know that this is a problem for many of us, particularly those in rural constituencies such as mine. I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, we have Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government questions next Monday and he might wish to raise the matter then. Secondly, I think that this would be an excellent opportunity for a debate—perhaps an Adjournment debate—and if he would like to speak to me, I will see what I can do to facilitate that.

Patrick Grady: My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—in fact, I think he should be my right hon. Friend—is racing back in breathless anticipation of the Lords amendments. We all know how much he values the Lords and their amendments. I have been left here to respond, but I do not know whether I would qualify for a last-minute spot on the Leader of the House’s caravan holiday. I am not as musically talented as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire, but I was told at my auntie’s recent birthday party—she turns 70 today, Mr Speaker—that I mix a good Bloody Mary. That might be helpful for Conservative Members next week when they wake up after six weeks of self-indulgence with an almighty hangover and realise the enormity of what they have done in selecting the new Prime Minister. That is why the Leader of the House really must make time for my hon. Friend’s Prime Minister (Nomination) and Cabinet (Appointment) Bill, which would give this House the opportunity to endorse any candidate put forward for nomination as Prime Minister. That is what happens in most civilised democratic institutions these days—starting, of course, with the Scottish Parliament.
Failing that, perhaps the Leader of the House’s caravan could be fitted with a rocket booster so that we can all observe the new Prime Minister’s blunders from the safety of the moon. Perhaps we could also have some time to debate my early-day motion 2599, which I have launched with support from across the House. It commemorates the 50th anniversary of that shared human endeavour.
[That this House recognises that 20 July 2019 marks 50 years since humanity first landed on the moon; remembers that NASA’s legendary Apollo 11 mission was launched by a Saturn V rocket from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with the ambition of landing a crew on the moon and returning them safely to earth; thanks the crew of three American astronauts, Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Buzz Aldrin; recalls that the Lunar module, nicknamed the Eagle, finally touched down on the moon on 20th July 1969; celebrates the legacy of Commander Armstrong who become the first human to ever set foot on the moon as he took one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind on to the lunar surface; further recognises that the moon landing represented the single greatest accomplishment in human history as it pushed the boundaries of what was believed to be possible and united humanity in a sense of collective endeavour and hopes that the spirit of Apollo 11 will inspire future generations to better understand the complexities of the universe.]
If we cannot go to the moon, perhaps we could go to Kew Gardens. At least, Scottish National party Members could go to Kew Gardens, because we are all going to be shut out of the debate on the Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill next week as the English Parliament—the English votes for English laws Legislative Grand Committee—meets for the first time in its full glory to consider that Bill in Committee. We look forward to seeing how many Members from England actually turn up to take part in that process, which was supposed to transform democracy in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps while we are in Kew Gardens, we can have a look under the bushes to see whether we can find out where the 1.5 allocated Opposition days that are still  due to the SNP have got to. There are many good reasons not to prorogue Parliament in the autumn, but if it were to be prorogued without our having had those opportunities that we as the third party are entitled to under the terms of the Standing Orders, that—and the use of the EVEL procedures—would serve only to demonstrate the fact that Scotland’s voice is being tuned out, and that the Leader of the House’s caravan is ready to drive off into the Brexit sunset without us.

Mel Stride: I welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) to his place, standing in for the legendary hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who I hope will be here next week, so that I can use my various lines on him. The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the Prime Minister (Nomination) and Cabinet (Appointment) Bill, which would make the Prime Minister’s appointment subject to a vote in this House. However, I think it is just a thinly veiled attempt by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire to get himself into No. 10 Downing Street, coming hard on the heels, as it does, of his tilt at the speakership and his Speaker’s manifesto. We know that all that is just a blatant power grab.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned EVEL. All I have to say is that this approach is working well and gives everybody across the House the ability to participate in the various debates at the different stages of a Bill, while giving the final veto on devolved competencies to the relevant area, such as England and Wales. He also mentioned Opposition day debates, and the Standing Orders are clear that there will be 20 such days per session, with 17 for the main Opposition party and three for the second largest, which is the SNP. My understanding is that that allocation has been met.

Anne Main: I was elected chair at the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for sustainable clothing and textiles. This House should have a debate on whether we are moving too far towards a plastic-free environment for the things that we pick up while retaining too much plastic in our textiles. We need to support our farmers who want to give us more natural fabrics, and we need to get out of wearing plastic.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I urge her to make them again at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions next Thursday. We should not overlook this Government’s considerable achievements in getting plastics out of our economy. Single-use plastic bag usage has reduced by some 86% since we introduced the plastic bag levy. I take on board her comments about plastics in clothing, which would make an excellent subject for debate.

Ian Mearns: I thank the leader of the pack—sorry, the Leader of the House—for next week’s business. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Backbench Business Committee puts on debates in the Chamber when the Government give us the time, so we are a little taken aback that the Leader of the House has decided that next Thursday will not be a Backbench Business day, going instead for a general debate in Government time on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
I am also a little surprised that the Leader of the House has also stolen from the Backbench Business Committee the subjects of two debates to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday. That is fine, and I am sure that the Members who applied to the Committee will be happy to have the subject matters aired, but one of them was going to involve a votable motion and is now a general debate. The other thing is that the lead Members in those applications do not now get to lead those important debates. Mr Speaker, will you give special consideration to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in the general debate on body image and mental health, and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in the debate on the role and sufficiency of youth services and give them slots high up in the pecking order?

Mel Stride: I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the absence of a Backbench Business debate next week. He has become rather used to having such debates almost every day over the past few weeks. I am particularly pleased that we are having the usual pre-recess debate, because it would have broken the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) had we not done so. If I have the opportunity to find time at a late stage for a Backbench Business debate—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this to me before—I will attempt to accommodate that, although I make no promises. Finally, I am sure that  Mr Speaker has noted the hon. Gentleman’s request regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).

Henry Smith: Apparently—not that I remember it—my parents got me up so that I could watch the moon landing, just as the shadow Leader of the House did. On its 50th anniversary, we should use its inspiration. May we have a statement on the importance of STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—as we remember the inspirational Apollo mission? I pay particular tribute to Ifield Community College in my constituency, which is undertaking a solar car project.

Mel Stride: In case anybody was wondering, I was just eight years old at the time of the lunar landing, and I remember watching it; it was an extraordinary moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point. He rightly congratulates his college, and stresses the importance of STEM subjects. I point out that we are making major progress in this area; for example, A-level maths is now the single most popular choice among students.

Kate Green: Yesterday, a group of young people were involved in a serious knife attack in my constituency. One of the group was taken to hospital, and the others were taken into custody. All were aged under 18. A primary school sports day was taking place across the road from where the attack occurred. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on the effectiveness of the serious violence strategy, and what Ministers are doing to ensure that we take these weapons off our streets?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady raises an important point. The thoughts of the entire House are with the family and friends of those involved in the incident. Knife crime, as she knows, is a complex issue, and there are a number of reasons why we have higher levels of it, albeit that crime generally has been falling since 2010. Often, knife crime is related to drugs, as she will know, and to county lines. That is why we have a cross-Government approach to tackling the issue. Some £100 million was provided in the last spring statement to make sure that we have the appropriate co-ordination to tackle the problem. I am sure that the Home Office and other Departments will have heard her question.

Hugo Swire: The National Crime Agency was first warned about the activities of the paedophile Matthew Bell in September 2016, but he was not arrested until March 2018, which allowed him to continue to abuse Filipino children, some as young  as 11, until April 2017. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, described this as “incredibly disturbing”, and went on to say,
“I’ve been concerned for many years that there just aren’t enough resources going into this given the scale of the escalating problem we face.”
May we have a debate in Government time, or a statement from the Home Secretary, on the resources available to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection command and the NCA, so that we can ensure that we are properly resourced to combat a crime that sometimes, alas, includes children around the world being peddled by their own family, and so that we can make sure that we are doing everything that we can to control and stamp out this abhorrent behaviour?

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend raises an appalling and deeply distressing set of issues that would be well served by a debate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) might consider this a subject for a future Backbench Business debate. I would be very happy to go further and offer to facilitate a meeting for my right hon. Friend with any particular Minister.

Karl Turner: In the very city where William Wilberforce led the fight against slavery, P&O Ferries is employing Portuguese and Polish crews on £1.83 an hour. The deck crew are required to work five months on. British ratings earn about £35,000 a year and are required to do two weeks on, two weeks off. Could we have a debate on this really important issue? I think this is slavery.

Mel Stride: I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him that—for raising this issue with me personally prior to business questions. He is absolutely right. On the face of it, what he has shared with the House is a deeply unsatisfactory situation, which appears, to me at least, to be a form of exploitation instead of the wages and conditions we would expect. It is certainly a good topic for debate, but if he would like me to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to take a closer look at the issue, I would be very happy to be of assistance.

Kirstene Hair: On Saturday, Brechin young farmers club will celebrate its 75th anniversary. I declare that I was previously a young farmer. Such  clubs do fantastic work in raising awareness of the farming industry, with social events and sporting events, and my locality had an annual cabaret competition. It did not serve me particularly well, which is why I am not on the stage but on these Benches instead. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the fantastic work of young farmers clubs up and down the country, because they should be recognised in this place?

Mel Stride: I thank my hon. Friend for asking a fantastic question. The young farmers in my constituency are a vibrant and important force. Farming sits right at the heart of our rural communities, in terms of employment, looking after the environment and so on, but farmers are generally getting older and the average age is increasing as the years go by. It is really important to get young blood into farming, and the young farmers clubs, including my hon. Friend’s, do a great job.

Ellie Reeves: Staff in libraries across Bromley are currently on indefinite strike because of draconian terms and conditions placed on them by the contractor, Greenwich Leisure Ltd, and Bromley Council has refused to take action. Our libraries are a fantastic community asset, but they are nothing without the dedicated staff who work there. Can we please have a debate in Government time about support and funding for our libraries?

Mel Stride: I will direct the hon. Lady to Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday. I think that would be useful. Libraries are hugely important, and we have provided considerable funding for them. There is no doubt that the terrain on which libraries operate is changing dramatically, with the use of digital information as opposed to books and print media, but we as a Government are very keen to support them.

Robert Halfon: Can we have an urgent statement from the Housing Minister about Persimmon Homes, following my question yesterday to the Prime Minister, which you kindly allowed, Mr Speaker? The homes, dreams and lives of Gilden Way residents in Harlow have been ruined because of shoddy building by Persimmon Homes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Persimmon should be removed from the right to buy scheme until these problems are sorted out, not just in Harlow but in other Persimmon properties across the country?

Mel Stride: We are making considerable progress in increasing the supply of new build housing, but that is not the same as saying that all housing is of the appropriate quality. It is characteristic of my right hon. Friend to look closely at that particular issue, to make sure that housing is fit for purpose. We have announced our intention for a new homes ombudsman, to protect the rights of homebuyers and to hold developers to account. I know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will have heard my right hon. Friend’s request for a statement, and I am happy to meet him to follow that up if he wishes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In calling the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), I congratulate him on, and offer him best wishes for, his wedding on Saturday. I  know that the House will join me in that expression of good will. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He is a very young man to be contemplating the state of matrimony, but we wish him well in its pursuit.

Chris Elmore: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. I am quite thrown now.
The Leader of the House may be aware that this week the Disability Benefits Consortium has highlighted the devastating impact of welfare changes on disabled people. The report highlights how disabled people have lost benefit payments of an average of around £1,200 each year as a result of Government changes. May we have an urgent debate on how we can change our benefits system to ensure that we actually help disabled people, rather than push them further into poverty?

Mel Stride: In the spirit of the wedding fest, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and I thank my wife for having put up with me for 14 years. It is our anniversary this weekend and she has truly put up with a great deal. I love you very much, Michelle. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Now I can do no wrong, can I?
On the hon. Gentleman’s question, overall we have brought in through universal credit a welfare system that is making sure that work pays, which is the best way for people to work out of poverty and why we have the lowest level of absolute poverty in our history. We recently made some changes to universal credit, including an increase in the annual allowance, which is worth £670 per year to 2.3 million people. Various other changes were made to help those who need support, but at the same time to encourage employment.

Andrew Bridgen: It is a huge source of shame that modern slavery persists in our country, in some cases on an industrial scale. It is always accompanied by other forms of organised crime, such as people trafficking, sexual exploitation and money laundering. May we have a debate on whether the modern slavery unit in the Home Office has sufficient manpower and resources to successfully and swiftly bring the perpetrators of such heinous crimes, and the complex criminal networks associated with them, to justice?

Mel Stride: Modern slavery is one of the scourges of a modern and global world. It is worth reflecting for a moment that one of the current Prime Minister’s key legacies will be the extraordinary work that she did and drove forward in this policy area, particularly when she was Home Secretary. For example, she brought in the various requirements on companies and on reporting, and she made sure that we have the resources and tools available to clamp down on this iniquitous situation.

Lisa Forbes: Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to implement one of the Government’s own pledges? In 2015, they promised statutory guidance on school uniform costs. Since then, the cuts have got worse, and the Tory council has axed the school uniform grant in my constituency, leaving parents in Peterborough forced to fork out three-figure sums annually. Education Ministers have replied to my questions by stating that, four years on, they are still waiting for parliamentary time. Will the Leader of the House make it clear that time is available?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady appropriately raises the question with me, because it relates to the provision of parliamentary time to bring in measures that she wants to see brought before the House. On that basis, I am happy to meet her over a cup of tea to talk about what might be done.

John Bercow: Unless I am misinformed, I think that was the hon. Lady’s first intervention in the Chamber. I congratulate her on it and express the hope that we will hear a lot more from her in the days, weeks and months to come.

Ross Thomson: On Tuesday, we learned that drug-related deaths in Scotland have reached their highest level on record—three times higher than the rest of the UK and the highest in the developed world. After 10 years in government, that is a shameful stain on the SNP’s record. This needless loss of life is a national emergency, so will the Leader of the House agree to hold an urgent debate in Government time?

Mel Stride: Scotland questions are on Wednesday, so I urge my hon. Friend to raise that issue on that occasion, as I have no doubt others will too. As the House will probably be aware, the UK legislative framework in this policy area falls to the Government here in Westminster, but operations on the ground—if I may term it that way—are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, who I am sure will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

Clive Efford: Sanctuary Care runs a number of care homes in the London Borough of Greenwich, and it is cutting the pay and conditions of staff who were TUPE-ed over several years ago from the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The chief exec earns £240,000 a year. At a time when people are concerned about standards of care in social care, is the company doing the right thing? May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about this kind of practice in the care system?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman raises a very specific issue relating to a particular care home in his constituency, and, of course, it is very difficult for me to comment with any intelligence on the points that he has made, other than to say that I would be very happy to assist him in facilitating a meeting with the relevant Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care should he so desire it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Ordinarily, I call everybody in business questions, as colleagues can testify from personal experience, but that will not be possible today because of the pressure on time. I give notice that we will be moving on at 11.30 am. Colleagues, therefore, should be considerate of each other and, dare I say it, perhaps behave in a comradely manner towards each other.

Maria Caulfield: May we have a statement on the issue of short formation trains? In Lewes, on peak services, we still get four-carriage trains, and passengers who pay an average of £4,500 a year for a season ticket cannot get on them. Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement from the Department for Transport?

Mel Stride: I am very happy to forward that request.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will go for the broadest smile. I call Lucy Powell.

Lucy Powell: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I try.
With new Government figures out this week showing that, for the first time ever, there are now more young black and minority ethnic young people in young offenders institutions than there are white people, will the Government make time for a debate on this important issue, given that their own race audit, the David Lammy review, and other evidence show that the way that charges are brought, prosecutions are made, and courts are run disproportionately affects those from certain backgrounds and certain communities more than their better-off peers?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady does indeed have a wonderful smile, though it is the smile of a crocodile, I think. Notwithstanding that, I will give her an answer and make it snappy, shall I?
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. We did, of course, commission the Lammy review. We accepted its recommendations and we are keen to crack on with them. The Minister responsible for the issue, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), is sitting next to me on the Treasury Bench and would be delighted to meet her.

Mark Pawsey: Last week, I met my 97-year-old constituent, Ron Mockford, who served in the far east in the second world war, was captured by the Japanese and spent three and a half years in captivity, during which time he worked on the Burma railway. Next year is the 75th anniversary of VJ-Day, and  Mr Mockford has called for a national day to mark it. Can we have a statement from the Government on their response to this very reasonable and sensible appeal?

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Because of the sequencing of the end of the second world war we tend perhaps to focus more on VE-Day than on VJ-Day, but I can inform him that the Government, working with the Royal British Legion, will look to mark the 75th anniversary of Victory over Japan Day on 15 August next year in the appropriate way.

Marion Fellows: Following the recent European Parliament elections, three SNP MEPs have been working hard to represent Scotland in the family of European democracies. However, there are three Catalan MEPs who are being denied their seats in the European Parliament for protecting Catalonia’s right to self-determination. Ministers in this place have frequently committed themselves to defending democracy, so can we have a debate, in Government time, on the state of democracy in Europe, and what this Government are doing to protect it?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady raises an important point about representation within Parliaments and about Members of Parliament taking their seats once they have been elected. I think that, perhaps, an Adjournment debate might be the right approach to ventilate that matter.

Alex Chalk: Can we have a debate about British Telecom’s hapless delivery of broadband under the Building Digital UK taxpayer-funded programme? Constituents of mine in Cirencester Road have been waiting for cabinet 129 to be fixed up. They  were promised that it would be done by the end of June. There has been delay after delay and broken promises. Can we have a debate to hold BT to account?

Mel Stride: Once again, this might be a good subject for an Adjournment debate, when the very specific issues—not least around cabinet 129—can be aired with the appropriate Minister.

Tracy Brabin: Could the Leader of the House arrange a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport? Although the Secretary of State has said since 2017 that the Pacer trains are going, we have just heard in Transport questions that “the majority” of the 101 Pacer trains are going. May we have a statement on which trains are going and when?

Mel Stride: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have taken the opportunity to raise that matter in Transport questions. If not, she has raised it now and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will shortly be aware of that. What I would say is that this Government have invested more in rail than at any time since the Victorian era.

Mike Wood: If someone were caught speeding, the police would have two weeks to notify them and six months to bring proceedings, but that person could bring a complaint against the police officer at any time and the investigation could take years to resolve. Could we have a debate on limiting the time for police complaint investigations to provide certainty for the complainant and for serving police officers?

Mel Stride: The whole issue of speeding has been raised with me in different ways and from across the House in the short time that I have been Leader of the House, so it appears that it is probably an area on which further debate is well overdue. I have just been passed a note to tell me that my hon. Friend’s father served 29 years with the West Midlands police; we thank him for his service.

Stephanie Peacock: This summer, schools in Barnsley East will be taking part in my Little Litter Champions project to help keep Barnsley tidy. Can we have a debate to discuss how we can use this initiative and others like it to promote recycling, protect our environment and promote pride in our local communities?

John Bercow: Did the hon. Lady say that she was taking part in this initiative?

Stephanie Peacock: I am encouraging local schoolchildren to take part.

John Bercow: Ah, but I am sure the hon. Lady will be taking part herself, being such a virtuous individual.

Stephanie Peacock: I will be.

John Bercow: I have no reason to doubt it.

Mel Stride: I direct the hon. Lady to Environment questions, which are next Thursday.

Steve Double: I want to raise an issue that I know Mr Speaker has previously commented on. All too often my constituency office staff are being blocked from assisting my constituents by overly officious staff at Cornwall Council saying that we do not have the required authorisation to act on  behalf of our constituents under general data protection regulation rules. Could we have a statement from a Minister to make it absolutely clear that as elected representatives of our constituents, we are authorised to act and that no further authorisation is required?

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend raises an important point that lies right at the heart of our ability as Members of this place to serve our constituents effectively. I would be happy to go further and arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister so that my hon. Friend can ensure that we have clarity on this matter.

Jim Shannon: The healthtech industry and health technology is a very valuable sector for the United Kingdom economy. This technology sector is very important, with 127,400 jobs, 3,860 companies and a turnover of £24 billion, and it has seen a 5% increase in growth in the last year. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this sector, which promotes and creates so much for the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend raises the important topic of the use of technology in healthcare—something with which the current Secretary of State for Health is very personally engaged as it features in our NHS long-term plan. I think this would make an excellent topic for a Westminster Hall debate.

Robert Courts: We all know that helping the environment is the greatest challenge of our time, but we cannot just leave the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to crack on with its work when we need reforms of planning systems so that we can have solar panels on houses, and reforms of transport infrastructure so that air quality is improved in places such as Chipping Norton. Can we have a series of debates in Government time so that we can examine how climate change and environment issues can be tackled holistically across Government?

Mel Stride: Taking a holistic approach to the many measures that are being taken right across Government Departments would be a very good angle for a debate. Of course, we are right in the lead when it comes to climate change internationally, having made the commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Derek Twigg: The Sankey canal, first opened in 1757, is an important green corridor and is used by a boat club in my constituency. It is in danger of drying out because the Fiddler’s Ferry power station, which supplies its water, is due to close next year. May we have an urgent statement or a debate involving the Environment Secretary to discuss what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can do to help this situation?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter specific to his constituency. If he writes to me or has a word with me about it after these questions, I will see what I can do to facilitate an engagement with DEFRA.

Stephen Kerr: I want to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson): the 1,187 people who have died in Scotland because of drug misuse. This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is clearly a drugs emergency in my part of the UK, yet no urgent question was granted and no Minister appeared at the  Dispatch Box to make a statement. Will the Leader of the House facilitate an early statement from either the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Care about what they will do to support the Scottish authorities to deal with the crisis?

Mel Stride: Given that my hon. Friend has raised that important matter as a follow-up to my other hon. Friend’s question, the best thing I can do to take it forward is to offer to meet them and any others interested in this subject, so that we can discuss the best way forward.

Siobhain McDonagh: Ms Watson is a disabled single parent who is studying to become a children’s social worker. She gave all her information to the universal credit authorities correctly and on time. Some 18 months later, they uploaded the information; two years later, they decided that she had had an overpayment of £10,000. They have accepted that that is their fault and even paid her £100 in compensation but they still want her to pay the money back. May we have an urgent debate on how the debt management department in the Department for Work and Pensions actually works and why it will not take responsibility for its errors?

Mel Stride: I am happy for the hon. Lady to write to me on the specific point about her constituent so that I can take it up with the DWP, to make sure that we  get a full and detailed response to the various issues. However, as I said earlier, the general principle of universal credit and how it works has been a major driver of employment in this country: we have the highest level of employment in our history and the lowest level of unemployment since 1974. We have halved youth unemployment since 2010.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

John Bercow: As a parliamentary statesman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield will wish to exemplify the single-sentence question.

Barry Sheerman: When all the kipper waving is over, may we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to tell us how we can use the French method of taking on Google, Facebook and others to regenerate our towns and cities so that they are safe, secure and prosperous?

Mel Stride: Treasury questions are on 10 September, when there may or may not be a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I can say is that, as regards current Government policy in this area, we have committed to a digital services tax—a levy on platform-based businesses that generate significant value within the United Kingdom while not traditionally falling within the criteria whereby we would normally have the taxation right. We are doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman has requested.

Gavin Newlands: Women’s sport has never been more prominent, and the women’s football World cup has opened many eyes and minds to talent in the women’s game. May we have a debate on how we can capitalise on that exposure and success by ensuring that women’s sport is supported appropriately—rather than what happened last week, when the Scottish Professional Football League thought it sufficient to gift the women’s game a few bags of footballs?

Mel Stride: That would be an excellent subject for debate; I say that as the father of three daughters who are enthused by subjects such as women’s football. It is great to see women getting more and more involved in a variety of our national sports.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Teachers, social workers, volunteers and NHS workers are all subject to enhanced disclosure checks, but Members of Parliament are not. I would like us to have a debate on the Floor of the House about why, with all the reputational damage that has been going on, we too are not subject to those checks.

Mel Stride: An Adjournment debate would be an opportunity to interrogate a Minister on that specific issue.
As this is the last question, may I thank Members for all their questions this week? Who knows what will happen next week, but it has been a great pleasure to take all their questions from the Dispatch Box.

John Bercow: I am sure that I speak for the House in thanking the Leader of the House for attending to our inquiries and for his customary courtesy, which alike are appreciated by Members across the House.

DETAINEES

David Lidington: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s approach to the detention and rendition of detainees overseas. Our policy on this issue remains clear: the Government do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose. To do so would not only be wrong and incompatible with the United Kingdom’s commitments under international conventions—such as the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to which this country is a signatory—but it would also be a betrayal of everything that we stand for as a nation, in terms of our promotion of human rights and protection of human dignity.
There is already clear guidance and training for UK personnel dealing with detainees who are held by others. That guidance has been reviewed at the Prime Minister’s request by Sir Adrian Fulford, the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to see how it could be improved further, taking account of the views of the Intelligence and Security Committee and civil society. The Government have accepted Sir Adrian’s proposals in full, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement earlier today.
We have published new guidance entitled “The principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”, which will replace the current consolidated guidance at the end of this year. The principles will be extended so that they explicitly cover the National Crime Agency and SO15 Metropolitan Police Service.
I would like to thank Sir Adrian for his work. The principles address many of the points raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee in recommending changes to the consolidated guidance. The new document will now be explicitly engaged when there is a risk of extraordinary rendition, rendition or unlawful killing occurring in the context of detention. It will also apply not only when UK personnel are working with Governments but when non-state actors or groups are involved. The principles introduce a formal error reporting obligation and a formal whistleblowing provision, in line with the commissioner’s statutory responsibilities in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
These new principles are part of steps taken by successive Governments to understand what happened in the aftermath of the appalling terrorist attacks of  11 September 2001 and to put in place improved policies and practice. As the Prime Minister said in a written statement on 28 June last year,
“With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that UK personnel were working within a new and challenging operating environment for which, in some cases, they were not prepared. It took too long to recognise that guidance and training for staff was inadequate, and too long to understand fully and take appropriate action on the risks arising from our engagement with international partners on detainee issues. The Agencies responded to what they thought were isolated allegations and incidents of mistreatment, but the ISC concludes that they should have realised the extent to which others were using unacceptable practices as part of a systematic  programme. The Agencies acknowledge that they did not fully understand this quickly enough and they regret not doing so.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 41WS.]
It is important to say, however, that the ISC found no evidence to support allegations that UK personnel directly carried out physical mistreatment of detainees.
Lessons have been learned from these challenging events, and from the various independent examinations of detainee issues that have taken place over the past 15 years or so. These have included: three separate investigations and reports published by the ISC in 2005, 2007 and 2018; Sir Peter Gibson’s detainee inquiry report, published in 2013; related police investigations; and thorough internal reviews by the security and intelligence agencies of their involvement in detainee cases from 2001 to 2010, which the ISC examined in its most recent report.
The position now is very different from the one confronting UK personnel in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001. Better guidance and training is coupled with a world-leading independent oversight regime, underpinned by the Justice and Security  Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This legislation has given the ISC enhanced powers to oversee the activities of the security and intelligence agencies, alongside the statutory role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who reports annually on his remit, including the application of detainee policy. The consolidated guidance and new principles make it clear that Ministers must be consulted if there is a serious or real risk of detainee mistreatment occurring at the hands of others, and of course the ministerial code reflects the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law.
I will turn now to the question of whether there should be a further inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition issues. As I told the House on Monday, in response to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), since publishing our response to the ISC’s reports on detainee mistreatment and rendition on 22 November 2018, the Government have given serious consideration to the examination of detainee issues and whether any more lessons could be learned and, if so, how. My right hon. and learned Friend, as the then Cabinet Office Minister without Portfolio, told the House on 19 December 2013 that once the ISC had completed its most recent work, the Government would
“take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 916.]
I undertook to give a definitive answer to that question, and I can confirm today that the Government have decided that it is not necessary to establish a further inquiry. There is no policy reason to do so, given the extensive work already undertaken to improve policies and practices in this area. The Government’s position is also that there is no legal obligation. These matters have been subject to a number of police investigations over the years, including Operations Hinton, Iden and Lydd, and a joint panel was set up by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service in January 2012 to consider allegations of UK involvement in detainee mistreatment. None of these police investigations has resulted in further action being taken, although some inquiries are continuing.
Parliament and the public can have confidence in the effectiveness of measures taken since 2010 and the new principles announced by the Government today to strengthen the accountability and oversight by Ministers, Parliament and the independent commissioners of the vital work of our security and intelligence agencies. I commend this statement to the House.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for the Cabinet Office for advance sight of his statement. I always look forward to my debates with the Minister, even if on one recent occasion I was denied that pleasure, as he greatly enjoyed pointing out at the time. Although on that note I should say that if this time next week he ends up on a slow train to the gulag, along with the Chancellor, to be replaced by some “do or die” no-deal Brexiteer, I can tell him that it is 20° and sunny in Siberia today—so don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.
On a serious note, I genuinely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to be a regular fixture at the Dispatch Box. Unlike the new Prime Minister, he always treats his ministerial responsibilities with the seriousness and diligence they deserve—I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that.
On this occasion, I fear there will be little consensus between me and the right hon. Gentleman. I believe the outgoing Prime Minister has made a fundamental error of judgment not to make good on the commitment of her predecessor, not to honour the promises of the former Justice Secretary and now Father of the House, and not to listen to the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee. They were all absolutely clear that the only way to get to the truth on these issues and to learn lessons for the future was for the Government to commission an independent and judge-led inquiry with the power and authority to examine all the evidence, question every potential witness and come up with conclusions to which the Government would be bound.
If the argument in 2010 or 2012 was that the inquiry could not be held at that time due to ongoing criminal investigations, that argument simply does not hold water today. If the long delay and sorely mistaken judgment was the result of a genuine deliberation within Government about the merits of the public inquiry, I could possibly agree to disagree but at least respect the thought that had gone into the decision. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Even before the ISC report was published, I believe there was a deliberate attitude on the Government’s part to circle the wagons and avoid any judicial scrutiny or public consultation on the past actions of the intelligence services or the future rules by which they operate, even though it is the intelligence services themselves whose reputation and morale is damaged most by failing to deal with this scandal.
On the new guidance published today, we are told that the views of civil society have been taken into account. Right from the outset, however, we know that the Government were determined to resist those views. If we want evidence for that, just look at the letter written to me and the shadow Attorney General in June last year by the man about to become the next Prime  Minister, who, titan of competence that he is, left attached to his letter the background note written by his staff explaining the position they were suggesting he take. This is what they said on the subject of public consultation with human rights groups on the guidance given to security service personnel, designed
“to reassure personnel that they are operating in accordance with UK and international law”.
According to the Foreign Office note, they had concluded that
“Public consultation…is likely to generate recommendations that we would not be able to implement without damaging national security.”
My first question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office is whether all the recommendations from civil society have been incorporated in the new guidance. Can I ask him specifically whether one of the most important recommendations they made has been adopted? Has there been an express prohibition on Ministers giving the green light to the torture of overseas detainees? If not, why not?
I could talk at further length today about the historical allegations in relation to torture and rendition dating back two decades and about the operation of secret courts, all of which I believe justify the independent judge-led inquiry for which we, the ISC and the Father of the House have called, but in the time that I have I want to make a simple point. If the Government are so confident that all the lessons of the past have been learned, that all the abuses of the past cannot be repeated, and that the new laws and procedures, which were, sadly, not strong enough before, are now in place, then what exactly do they have to fear by allowing a judge to look at this issue to examine all the evidence, interview all the witnesses and look at the new procedures and rules, so that he or she can tell the Government whether they are right?

David Lidington: May I first genuinely thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words at the start of her remarks? I think it is fair to say that when we have tilted lances at each other we have done so in the spirit of mutual respect, even if it has sometimes been no holds barred in terms of the professional combat in which we have been engaged.
If I can seek to respond to the questions the right hon. Lady posed to me, the Government did listen to the ISC; indeed Sir Adrian’s revisions—incorporated in the new principles, which the Government have accepted today—reflect in many detailed aspects the precise recommendations of the Committee in its two reports of 2018.
Without going into detail about internal matters and procedures within Government, I can assure the House that there was very genuine and very detailed deliberation within Government about the right way forward. While the decision on matters relating to security intelligence always rests with the Prime Minister ultimately, the House would, I am sure, have expected that other senior Ministers with an interest in these matters would be consulted and would have given their advice to the Prime Minister, and that happened.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the views of civil society. I never made any claim in my statement that the Government’s response or the proposals by Sir Adrian reflected in full the views of civil society. What I can say  is that Sir Adrian, in the course of his review, took great care to consult civil society; he convened meetings where representatives of civil society could make their representations to him and put forward their ideas. The Government have accepted Sir Adrian’s recommendations in full, without qualification. If Sir Adrian, in his recommendations, chose not to reflect everything that particular civil society organisations wished to see, that was a judgment by Sir Adrian, and it was right for the Government to rely on the independent commissioner to be the prime source of advice to us on these matters.
The right hon. Lady asked, in particular, about the idea of an express prohibition on Ministers. As she will have seen, in his report Sir Adrian did say that he looked at whether extra duties should be imposed on Ministers, and he considered that that was not part of what he should be proposing. However, as I said in my statement to the House, it is already the position that Ministers are bound by the law and by the ministerial code. The ministerial code requires Ministers to comply with the law in all their actions as Ministers, and we include in the definition of compliance with the law compliance with the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations. Those duties on Ministers are very clear already, and that is reinforced by the fact that the civil service code, which operates on the basis of comparable principles, is grounded in statute, so it is straightforwardly a breach of that statute for civil servants to act in any way, professionally, that would breach the law.
I would just say to the right hon. Lady that the Government were as open as we could possibly be during the various inquiries and investigations that have taken place. For example, the Intelligence and Security Committee had access to the Government material that was presented to the Gibson inquiry and to the agency chiefs’ responses to the 27 themes and issues identified by Sir Peter Gibson in his preliminary report, and the Committee was provided with the Intelligence Services Commissioner’s views on the current compliance with those aspects of the consolidated guidance that he is responsible for monitoring. We therefore tried to be as open as possible, within the limits of what it is possible to discuss openly, about the issues we are debating today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. These are extremely important matters, but I intend to move on from this statement absolutely no later than 10 past 12 and to dispose of, in the parliamentary sense, the business of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on the Select Committee statement by absolutely no later than half-past, so economy is of the essence. I call  Mr Dominic Grieve.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend has said, and the Intelligence and Security Committee greatly welcomes what he said about the consolidated guidance. It has said since 2010 that the title “guidance” is itself misleading. It is not guidance, but a framework which sets the boundaries, and we are pleased that the Government have now openly acknowledged that. We are also pleased that the principles reflect the important changes that we recommended, including specific reference to extraordinary rendition alongside torture and cruel, inhuman and  degrading treatment, the application of the principles to joint units and non-state actors, and regular review—which is of the utmost importance, because it had not been taking place regularly in the past. We are also pleased that the agencies must follow the spirit of the principles, not just the letter. All those are, in our view, major steps forward. I greatly welcome them, and thank the Government for their positive response.
The second issue concerns the inquiry into what happened during the period which has given rise to the disquiet expressed in the House and elsewhere. When the ISC was asked to carry out an inquiry, we were assured that we would have access to all the evidence that we needed in order to complete it, and thus to provide the necessary public assurance to bring closure to this matter. However, as my right hon. Friend well knows, we were unfortunately denied access to certain individuals who would have given oral evidence before us, and we therefore concluded that we must bring our inquiry to an end and publish the material that we had. A judge-led inquiry would undoubtedly have presented another opportunity for that full transparency.
Leaving aside policy or legal reasons, the one point that I would make to my right hon. Friend is that even when problems have been remedied, there is sometimes a good policy reason for bringing about closure. The simple question that I pose to him is whether the decision that has been taken will enable that closure to take place.

David Lidington: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s welcome for Sir Adrian’s report and the new principles that the Government have accepted. I was expecting him to express disappointment about our decision with regard to a judge-led inquiry.
I do not want to spend too much time going over old ground, but, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the ISC was given access to all the material that the Government supplied to the Gibson inquiry and in relation to other matters. I understand that the Committee took more than 50 hours of oral evidence, reviewed 40,000 original documents, and devoted more than 30,000 staff hours to its inquiry.
The one point of difference concerned the Committee’s request to take evidence from junior officials. The Government attempted to find a compromise that would enable some of them to appear, but we were unable to reach agreement on that. It is a long-established principle that junior staff are not required personally to answer to parliamentary Committees. That is recognised in the Government’s memorandum of understanding with the ISC, which permits the Committee to take oral evidence from Ministers, agency heads and senior officials. A number of those whom the Committee wished to interview had been junior officials at the time of the events in which the Committee was interested.
Let me now respond to my right hon. and learned Friend’s direct question. One of my concerns about the judge-led inquiry is that it would give rise to expectations about closure, but would not be able to deliver them. By definition, the sort of material that we are talking about could not be discussed openly without risk of harm to the national interest. Apart from the fact that we see neither a legal nor a policy reason for resuming a judge-led inquiry, I fear that the offer of closure would  eventually be seen as a grave disappointment by those who are arguing for a such an inquiry because of the necessity for secrecy.

Joanna Cherry: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and agree with others that much of it is to be welcomed. However, like others I regret the decision not to hold an independent judge-led inquiry. The arguments that the Gibson and ISC investigations obviate the need for an independent judge-led inquiry do not hold water, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the ISC’s investigation took place under such severe Government restrictions that, as the Committee itself states, it was left unable to conduct an authoritative inquiry or produce a credible report. As a result, the ISC chose to classify its report and its conclusions as provisional and warned that it must not be taken as a comprehensive account. Does the Minister not see that the only way to take the work of the ISC forward and properly address what went wrong is to establish an inquiry with the necessary powers to follow the leads that the ISC could not? Obviously, some aspects of that inquiry could not be held in public, although others could, and the right model for this is an independent judge-led inquiry with the full powers of such a judge-led inquiry in relation to the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses, along with the independent ability to assess all the evidence and make a determination as to what cannot be published for national security reasons. Does the Minister not see that such an inquiry would not be required to start from scratch? It could take the ISC findings as a base, and they could provide a clear road map for a future investigation. A judge-led inquiry could focus on answering the unanswered questions, reviewing the unexplored cases and examining the evidence the ISC was not able to see. With such considerations in mind, can the Minister not see that there is unfinished business here, and does he think that the incoming Administration might reconsider this decision, having regard to the points I have made?

David Lidington: I cannot speculate about what an incoming Administration might or might not do. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her welcome for the principles, but I disagree with her on this point: I do not see that a revived judge-led inquiry would add anything to the actions that have already been taken. The Government and the agencies have accepted that things were done wrong, for various reasons, between 2001 and 2010. As a result of internal investigations, the ISC’s reports and the commissioner’s recommendations significant improvements have been made to the internal training of staff in the agencies. There is much greater clarity and rigour in the guidance that officers are given, and the accountability of officers to Ministers in cases where there might be a risk of torture or inhuman treatment has been highlighted in the guidance and the training.
In light of those changes, it is our view that no new policy decision would arise out of a further judge-led inquiry, nor do we believe that there is a legal obligation on the Government to hold such an inquiry. The police have had access to all the material they wish to access about individual cases, and, as I have said, they have  concluded a number of investigations without need for further process, while a few investigations are continuing. So I think all necessary steps have been taken.

David Davis: I will resist the temptation to reply to the failure to provide a judge-led inquiry in four words; those words being, “See you in court,” because it is quite plain that this decision will face a judicial review and that will take even more time and give less closure.
My right hon. Friend asked us to accept that the Government have solved the problems, and ironically he cites as evidence of that a number of ISC reports from some years ago which are now understood to have got the answer wrong because they were misinformed. The current ISC report—much better, much higher quality—was of course limited, as we heard from its Chairman, by the restriction on witnesses.
So the Government are asking us to allow them to mark their own homework. If we want a real coruscating comment on that, we need only look back at the Binyam Mohamed case and the remarks of Judge Neuberger on the Government’s and agencies’ handling of it throughout. The Government should simply not be allowed to mark their own homework.
On the point that the Government have solved the problems, I am afraid that that is plainly and demonstrably not true. That is illustrated most clearly in the point raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary that there is no prohibition on Ministers approving torture. My right hon. Friend the Minister says that they are required to obey the law, but they were required to do so in 2002 when the law was precisely the same in terms of international convention, so that does not apply either. We have evidence from one month ago, Mr Speaker, when you allowed an urgent question in this Chamber to the Ministry of Defence, which had produced internal policy documents that explicitly conceived of Ministers approving co-operation with states that had used torture to acquire information. So, plainly, the Government have not learned their lesson yet. There are a number of reasons for having an inquiry—legal, reputational, operational, closure and the simple one of keeping the promise we gave—and I am afraid that the Government will eventually be forced into that position.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend has been pursuing these issues for quite a long time now. He has always been absolutely consistent in the position he has taken, and I respect that position even though the Government disagree with his views.
Going back to the question about witnesses at the ISC, the offer was always there for agency chiefs, senior officials and Ministers to speak on behalf of officers who were or had been junior at the time of the events complained of. That is the way in which the Government respond to every Select Committee of Parliament, with the seniors in a Department or agency taking responsibility for the decisions made by junior staff.
In respect of what my right hon. Friend said about the Ministry of Defence, he will find when he looks at the principles that they apply expressly to members of our armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has issued a written ministerial statement today in which she says that the Ministry of Defence accepts the principles in full and has already begun work to update its internal guidance accordingly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Musings and commentary are not required. Single-sentence questions and pithy replies are.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the statement and note that a lot of the recommendations of our ISC report have been adopted, although I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on the Front Bench that a judge-led inquiry was not one of them. The important thing is the five-year review. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when it happens, it is made fully public?

David Lidington: I am grateful to the right hon Gentleman for his welcome, and I will ensure that we seek to be as public as possible about the five-year review. The five years should be regarded as a maximum period. Frankly, if evidence comes to light at any stage that amendments are needed, I would expect the Government and the agencies to act accordingly and make the amendments sooner.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, cannot be here today, for reasons he has explained, but were he here, I am sure he would say what I am going to say, which is that this is a breach of the undertaking that was given to the country and to Parliament by the Cabinet, of which the Father of the House and I were members. Both of us were also members of the National Security Council. I am mindful of the serious damage that this has done to our international reputation, and it is a great pity that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government have reached the conclusions that they have today.

David Lidington: I respect my right hon. Friend’s position, but I disagree with it, for the reasons that I have set out. We address harm to our national reputation by clearly being seen to admit when things have gone wrong in the past and taking resolute action to put them right, and I think that the measures that have been put in place over the last few years are evidence that we have done so.

David Hanson: As a member of the ISC, I welcome the recommendations the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has accepted, but could he establish the principle that it is for the ISC, not the Government, to determine whom it sees?

David Lidington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the principles. The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC does make it clear that the ISC is entitled to take evidence from Ministers, senior officials and agency chiefs. That is in line with the relationship between the Government and every departmental Select Committee, and I am not persuaded that there is a need to change that.

Richard Benyon: Does my right hon. Friend understand that he would have had an easier ride today if the Government had been more flexible on whom we, as a Committee, could see?

David Lidington: I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend is making, but I repeat the point that it is a long-established principle, reflected in the memorandum of understanding with the ISC, that it is senior officials, agency chiefs and Ministers who are accountable to the Committee, rather than junior officials.

Caroline Flint: The Government accepted all the major recommendations of the ISC and that will lead to real change, but there is one that they have not accepted, which is on emergency authorisations. The Committee recommended these should not be used where there is a serious risk of torture, and if they were, that they should be escalated to the appropriate level of authorisation. Why has that not been taken on board?

David Lidington: If the right hon. Lady looks again at the principles that have been published today, she will see that, where there is a real risk of torture, there is a requirement that that must be escalated to Ministers, even if that carries an increased risk of, for example, a terrorist attack succeeding. I am happy to write to the right hon. Lady to set out the detail, but that is my very clear understanding.

Bill Grant: I, for one, welcome the improved guidance and the more robust oversight of the work of our security and intelligence agencies. May I ask the Minister: is it the case that the UK is one of the very few countries in the world publicly to set out its approach on the detention, treatment and interviewing of detainees overseas?

David Lidington: It is, and I think we can take some pride in the fact that the arrangements that have been put in place in recent years are seen as an example elsewhere in the world.

Tom Brake: The Government are wrong to reject a judge-led inquiry, which was the only way to find out if the lessons have been learned. Given the Minister’s statement, will he commit to two measures: first, legislation to provide redress for victims of extraordinary rendition; and, secondly, an immediate review of guidance should it become clear that UK personnel are still at risk of breaking the law?

David Lidington: It is very clearly our view that if an officer in any of the agencies or someone in the armed services is complying with the principles, they should not be at legal risk. I will take advice on the final question the right hon. Gentleman put to me, and write to him. Clearly, issues to do with legislation will have to be a matter for the incoming Administration.

Mike Wood: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the apparent lack of appropriate ministerial oversight in the early years of this century? What has been done to ensure that the intelligence agencies are properly accountable to Ministers?

David Lidington: It is clear that things did go wrong—and seriously wrong—in the aftermath of 9/11. What has happened since then is that we have given enhanced powers to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we have established the independent commissioner on a statutory basis so that he is seen to be completely independent of Government.

Melanie Onn: Would it not be a source of reassurance for the Government to have an independent inquiry that would ensure the new principles are watertight and give the British public absolute confidence in our overseas engagements?

David Lidington: The problem with what the hon. Lady suggests is that, because so much of the information and documentation would have to remain secret for good security reasons, that could not provide such reassurance. It is the independence of the commissioner and the Committee that is the best and most compelling assurance we can give people.

Andrew Slaughter: If matters are escalated to Ministers, will they be prohibited from authorising action that carries a real risk of torture?

David Lidington: I cannot see any circumstance in which a Minister of the United Kingdom would authorise action that was contrary to the law.

Stephen Timms: Is it not in everybody’s interests to get to the bottom of what went wrong here? Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee said that it could not produce a credible report, we surely do still need that judge-led inquiry.

David Lidington: No. Any judge-led inquiry would have to conduct many, if not most, of its proceedings in secret, so it could not provide the kind of assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

GOVERNANCE OF OFFICIAL STATISTICS

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Select Committee statement

John Bercow: In a moment, Sir Bernard Jenkin will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes—there is absolutely no obligation on him to take the full 10—during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Sir Bernard Jenkin to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Members of the Front-Bench teams may take part in questioning. As signalled earlier, I intend that we move on to the next business no later than 12.30 pm.

Bernard Jenkin: Following a thorough inquiry, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has published its latest report this morning entitled “Governance of official statistics: redefining the dual role of the UK Statistics Authority; and re-evaluating the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007”. Our main finding is that UKSA’s dual role of both producing and regulating official statistics has compromised its ability to ensure that statistics serve the public good. We therefore recommend that UKSA is split into two separate bodies: the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Statistics Regulation.
This may seem a rather dry and obscure topic, but the reality is that pensioners, students and rail commuters pay the price of dodgy statistics. Public confidence in the Government’s policies and the political debate also suffers as a result. In 2014, when our predecessor Committee exposed how police officers were manipulating the collection and interpretation of police recorded crime to make the situation look better than it was, UKSA withdrew its “official statistics” designation of approval for police recorded crime. In 2013, UKSA did the same to the retail prices index, because it has for some time been regarded as an unreliable indicator of movements in retail prices.
RPI and UKSA’s role in the governance of statistics is used as a case study in our report. UKSA has not made itself sufficiently independent of Government, particularly from the Treasury, and is therefore shying away from its responsibility to be accountable to Parliament and the public. For almost a decade, there has been concern about the discrepancy between the consumer prices index and UKSA and the ONS’s calculation of RPI, but UKSA has refused to account for its RPI figure. As a result of overestimated RPI, commuters face higher rail fares and students have to pay higher student loan interest rates. In January 2019, the Economic Affairs Committee of the other place reported that by failing to fix RPI, UKSA risks breaching its statutory duties. The report recommends that UKSA demonstrates more proactive, quicker responses to concerns about the accuracy and misuse of statistics and should more clearly demonstrate its independence from key stakeholders, such as the Treasury, when it has significant disagreements with producers of statistics.
PACAC also expresses concern about UKSA’s openness to parliamentary and public scrutiny. The report finds that UKSA is slow to respond or take action on correspondence and reports from parliamentary Committees. PACAC therefore urges UKSA to attend an annual hearing with the Committee to improve its accountability to Parliament and make its governance more transparent, so that it can be scrutinised in public. PACAC concludes that, through its continued mishandling of RPI, UKSA has allowed what was originally a simple mistake in the collection of price inflation data to snowball into a major unresolved issue lasting for a decade.
The good news is that, on the whole, the UK has a world-class statistical system, and we should commend the statisticians and people who work in the ONS. When UKSA was first established, it was a huge step forward, but it must improve. Its governance must improve, and its board must improve. The fundamental problem of UKSA’s conflicting roles can only be resolved in the end through fresh legislation creating two separate bodies, but action can be taken immediately to improve the situation. At present, the Office for Statistics Regulation is separately identified, but is not given the autonomy and independence it needs. We question why the OSR has never called out the Government for continuing to rely on the flawed RPI. We recommend it immediately makes clear what is necessary to correct the calculation of RPI and that the non-executive directors of UKSA take charge of supervising the OSR in order to underpin its operational independence. For example, it should have separate premises.
The UK Statistics Authority was created in 2008 as a statutory body to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics, and UKSA was given the dual function of being both the main provider of national statistics and the regulator. The report recommends that the Government introduce legislation to divide UKSA into two separate bodies: one for production and one for regulation. However, the Committee recognises that early legislation is unlikely, and that other steps need to be taken.
UKSA’s statutory objective commits it to
“informing the public about social and economic matters”
and
“assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy”.
However, our report finds that it should do those things much better. UKSA does not have a complete understanding of who uses statistics, what they use them for, and what statistics are in demand. Our report concludes that
“with only a modest sense of how the public uses data and no evidence of the unmet needs, UKSA is not delivering public good as required under the legislation.”
The Committee recommends that UKSA should lead cross-Government research to build an evidence base for how statistics are used in practice, taking into account the full breadth of stakeholders, not just users, and to establish where data gaps persist.
The report outlines how technology and innovation should make statistics more robust and more accessible to decision makers and the public. UKSA is doing many such things, but we want its work to accelerate. However, the Committee heard that Government progress to capitalise on data innovations has been slow and that  significant work remains. The Committee also calls on UKSA to take a stronger leading role across technology, data science, data ethics and influencing improved sharing of data. I commend the report to the House.

John Bercow: We are extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: Statistics are obviously absolutely vital if this country is to develop good policy on a whole range of different subjects, not least medicine. However, statistics are sometimes used by scurrilous politicians trying to purvey a particular version of events that is a long way away from the official version of the UK Statistics Authority, and we have seen recent instances in which it has told off Ministers and others. Did the Committee consider any means of punishing offenders who have tried to muddy the waters with false facts?

Bernard Jenkin: It is difficult to envisage how that could be done without conflicting with the right of free speech. After the referendum, there was a discussion about whether there should be some regulation of what official campaigns actually say, for example, but that is difficult to do in the rough and tumble of politics, elections and referendums. Calling people out in public and being ready to do so is an important power that UKSA has through the Office for Statistics Regulation, but the Committee thinks that it could do that much more readily and proactively. Indeed, I have been personally critical of it for not doing so; it sometimes seems rather capricious in the targets it selects. This all suggests that the OSR should be a separate body with a far greater sense of its own sense of purpose, rather than being part of the organisation that also produces all the statistics.

Kelvin Hopkins: As a member of the Select Committee, I was very pleased to participate in the production of this report and to heartily support its conclusions and recommendations. I also support the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Committee, whose strong leadership on this and other reports has made a mark for our Committee. My concern all along has been rather wider than the report—the level of statistical understanding of the general public. As someone who formerly taught statistics, I suggest to Ministers, particularly in the Department for Education, that we ought to address the poor level of statistical understanding among the general populace and the poor levels of numeracy, so that the public are less prone to being bamboozled and manipulated by the dodgy statistics that the Chair so eloquently spoke about.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee; as our resident statistician, he contributes greatly to our scrutiny of statistics. I agree that we need a higher level of debate about statistics. UKSA has made big strides in how it presents statistics online, but we still think that the website could improve. His question underlines how important it is that there is commentary and explanation of statistics so that people understand, and indeed, that the media understand what they are reporting when they report statistics. That is a very important part of what the UK Statistics Authority should be doing.

Gareth Thomas: I suspect that a number of my constituents will be very interested in the Select Committee’s report, not least because each recent census has significantly under-reported those of the Jain or Zoroastrian faith in the UK, making it harder for both faith groups to win recognition for their communities both in Whitehall and across key public services, from the NHS to the BBC. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Office for National Statistics to review its decision not to allow a clearer opportunity in the 2021 census for Jains and Zoroastrians to register their faith adherence?

Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that the powers that be who design the census will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. We have not started scrutinising preparations for the next national census, but I will bear his point in mind.

John Bercow: I do not have any indication that the Front Benchers wish to participate in the questioning on this matter—I do not think they do. Sir Bernard, we are deeply grateful to you.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EXECUTIVE FORMATION) BILL

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 3

Progress reports

Hilary Benn: I beg to move manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2 to 18.

Hilary Benn: I support Lords amendment 1, which very sensibly provides for when the reports required under the Bill should be made to the House and provides an opportunity for the House to debate them. In other words, it provides a context in which we can discuss what is contained in those reports by requiring them to be made and requiring a motion to be presented to the House.
Given that other matters, which we debated at some length last week, have been added to the Bill since it was originally published—and have widened the scope of the Bill considerably beyond the original purpose solely relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—it seems to me even more important that we have the provisions in Lords amendment 1 in the Bill. But there is a problem that my amendment seeks to fix if the House is not sitting—for example, because it has been prorogued —on the dates by which the reports have to be made, and the crucial dates are 4 September and 9 October. My amendment simply seeks to make provision for the House to be recalled in those circumstances to allow the opportunity for us to consider the reports and debate the motions that arise from the Bill if Lords amendment 1 is accepted by the House.
I should say at this stage that probably not every Member of the House is entirely familiar with the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, but the most important thing to recall is that section 1 is still on the statute book. It has been used, most recently in section 68(10) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and in section 28(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act makes specific reference to the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797.
In other words, this amendment does not—I emphasise this—seek to establish a new constitutional principle. It simply seeks to use previous practice to make sure that Parliament is sitting when it needs to be sitting to debate these matters. As I hope the amendment makes clear, it would do so by requiring that Parliament be recalled on a specified day within the period in which compliance with subsection (2B) of Lords amendment 1 is required. In other words, the Minister would have to lay the report and the motion in neutral terms would have to be moved within the period of five calendar days, beginning with the end of the day on which the report was made. If my amendment is carried, we would be sitting in order to ensure that we had the  chance both to consider the report and, crucially, to debate the motion that has been presented. That is the single purpose of my amendment. It would be rather odd, would it not, for the House to legislate to provide for these reports and motions on specified dates, only to find itself not being here to consider the reports and to debate the motions because of some other action, namely the fact that we might not be sitting.
My final point is this: everyone in the House is well aware that Brexit has significant implications for the country as a whole, but it will have particular implications for Northern Ireland, which the Exiting the European Union Committee has reported on and many Members on both sides of the House have spoken of. I suppose that this amendment has a secondary effect: to ensure that the House would be sitting at a crucial time for our country, as I believe the country would expect us to be. I do not think that we could accept circumstances, if I may coin the phrase, in which we were sent missing in action, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Alistair Burt: I rise simply to support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and to explain why I added my name to amendment (a).
As the right hon. Gentleman concluded on the position of Northern Ireland—the springboard for the amendment—the implications of every decision taken by the United Kingdom in relation to Brexit are highly significant both for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For us to be in the run-up to 31 October without those considerations being before the House seems genuinely very difficult, as it does when we go beyond that and consider that the House might not be sitting during the run-up to the date itself to consider all the other things. If we have felt under the weight of any pressure up to now, I venture to suggest to the House that that will be as nothing compared with the days leading up to 31 October if it is not clear where  the country is going, either because a deal has been agreed or because the consequences of no deal have been sufficiently spelt out that everybody has been able to take a view. The idea that we might not be here to reflect those concerns and to take our own view on what the circumstances might be seems to me not only highly unlikely, but undesirable and preventable.
I have added my support for amendment (a), which strengthens the Anderson amendment agreed to in the other place and makes sure that we will be here to reflect the views of our constituents. Amendment (a) does not suggest how the House would vote when presented with a choice between a deal and no deal; it makes absolutely certain, in the absence of assurances, that we will be here then.
I commend to the House the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

Angela Eagle: I rise to support the extremely sensible cross-party amendment so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It looks like a technical measure, and in many respects it is. We are dealing with circumstances  that I thought I would never face as a Member of this House; the unwritten constitutional norms that we have all accepted in our time in this place are being openly played and challenged by two people, one of whom will be an occupant of Downing Street by the end of next week, having been elected Prime Minister in an extremely mini poll of an extremely narrow number of people.
During the many hustings and debates in that election, the question has been posed of whether this Parliament should be prorogued—sent away—in an effort to get past the issue of its having three times voted against leaving the EU without a deal. The thought that Britain, a great democracy that helped to forge the post-war international rules-based system, should think of getting out of its treaty commitments by simply ripping them up and walking away, and turning its back on negotiation, would never have occurred to most of our predecessors in this place. Certainly, during the referendum, the idea that there could be no deal was not on the agenda; in fact, it was so off the agenda that it was not talked about at all. Those telling us that we should vote to leave the EU said that the deal would be the easiest in history. Nobody mentioned the phrase “no deal”.
Today we see what the Office for Budget Responsibility —an independent economic forecasting outfit appointed by the Government—believes the economic consequences of no deal would be. It does not take a genius, or even someone with a degree in economics, to see from a quick look at the report how disastrous that would be; Britain would enter a recession, and our GDP would be 3% smaller, even in the initial phases.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend has a degree in economics and a degree in politics. From her knowledge of political history and the constitution of this country, would she say that it would be an outrage if a Prime Minister sought to thwart the will of the House by proroguing Parliament?

Angela Eagle: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend and I were establishing our economic and political credentials at university at the same time. His judgment has only improved and matured over the years.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is an outrage that this debate, which is supposed to be on the Northern Ireland Executive’s formation, is being hijacked and turned into something to do with Brexit, and to do with every issue under the sun except the formation of the Executive, which now looks more unlikely as a result of this legislation?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right to be somewhat miffed about what he calls a hijack, but what I call a situation in which needs must. This is the longest parliamentary Session since the civil war, because the Government, who effectively have no majority, dare not prorogue Parliament, as they would then have to have a Queen’s Speech, and they do not have one handy because the work has not been done. No Government Front Bencher knows whether they will be on the Front Bench next week. Some know that they definitely will not; I hope that that will free them up when they are in the voting Lobby a bit later. The lack of a chance to use a legislative vehicle to establish Parliament’s rights has led   us to this pass, so I understand the hon. Gentleman’s feelings, but when a legislative vehicle passes, and it is the only one in a desert, and we desperately need to clamber aboard, then needs must.

Ian Paisley Jnr: You accept that this is an abuse.

Angela Eagle: I did not say that it was an abuse; I said that needs must. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s irritation with the situation, but as this is the only legislative vehicle in sight, it is quite legitimate to try to use it to assert Parliament’s rights on this matter.

Matt Rodda: I commend my hon. Friend’s speech. This is very much the right thing to do, and as she says, needs must. We face a serious crisis in this country, and it is right to bring forward amendment (a), however difficult that might be for some colleagues.

Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing with me. Perhaps this should happen more regularly; perhaps we should try to get more agreement across the House, rather than having some people in one group and others in another, in little newly forming tribes, as hate and division take root in our society. I am one of those who think that compromise is a good idea.
The amendment is trying to put into law, albeit in a clumsy way, the constitutional convention that Parliament should decide matters of great import. It should not be sent away artificially by a Prime Minister with no electoral mandate whatever, and possibly no majority whatever, in order for them to accomplish one of the most far-reaching and controversial things in modern politics—our leaving the EU without a deal. That would entail a huge loss of legitimacy, which would divide the country much further still.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Lady feel, as I do, that when people look back on this debate and on this measure, they will find it quite extraordinary that we needed to have this discussion about whether the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be in session when the events of which she speaks are likely to occur?

Angela Eagle: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, and I commend his attempts, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to ensure that Parliament was not in that position, by seeking to prevent a no-deal crash-out.
If we had a future Prime Minister who respected the rules and lines of our unwritten constitution, and who did not wish to drive a coach and horses through them in the most controversial way possible, perhaps we would not have had to resort to this. If the future Prime Minister was conservative, and was interested in conserving the traditions and rights of this place, he would, in the first item of his leadership bid, rule out a no-deal Brexit by Prorogation of Parliament. Alas, not only has he not done that but, as the Tory leadership campaign has gone on, his rival has been dragged towards using Prorogation as a tactic to send Parliament home so that it cannot have a view.
Finally, I have already said that this is the longest Session of Parliament since the English civil war, and we are contemplating a new Tory Prime Minister who seems to believe that he can behave like a Stuart king. It did not end well in the century of the civil war, and I warn the next Prime Minister that it will not end well if he tries to do the same thing in the 21st century.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There are other colleagues who wish to speak. It would be a considerable discourtesy for anybody to speak for longer than five minutes, given that others also wish to contribute.

Justine Greening: The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill is all about making sure that democracy works for the people of our country whom it serves. That is why I very much support it. However, it goes wider than that in practice. This country finds itself in a time of crisis—we all know that. Many people listening to this debate will be wondering why we are even having a summer recess and going away on holiday when there are so many unresolved issues in relation to Brexit. The simple act of passing the amendment to make sure that we do indeed sit as normal during September and October is, therefore, common sense and the House should get behind it. In no way does it try to curtail decisions that a Government or a Parliament might want to make—quite the reverse: it seeks to ensure that our parliamentary democracy can simply function as normal.
We should all reflect on the fact that this debate is even necessary in our country. What has Britain come to when we have to table amendments to ensure that Parliament can still operate? To those who say that shutting down Parliament is somehow a viable approach, I simply say: you do not win a debate by closing down the main Chamber in which the views of the people of this country are aired, and you do not unite a country by muzzling the people whom those communities have democratically elected to come here to represent them.
There are other practical reasons why we should support this common-sense amendment. We all know that this is a time of global political and economic instability. Are we really saying that this House would not be there to debate issues that might arise, just in case it had its say on the hugely important issue of Brexit or spoke with one voice about the Government’s proposed course of action? It is entirely untenable—indeed, it is dangerous and extremely short-sighted—to shut down this Parliament at a time of so much uncertainty.
I will finish by saying that the amendment has to pass. If it does not, I fear that we will inadvertently cross the Rubicon for our parliamentary democracy. That would mean that if a Government ran up against an issue and were worried that the elected House of MPs might decide to stand up against them, they would just close it down. That is not in Britain’s DNA. The rest of the world looks on and admires our democracy because it is such a fundamental part of how this country has developed. For that reason alone, we should get behind this amendment, which is about protecting the right of ordinary people up and down this country to have their MP come here and do their job of representing them, for good or for bad.

Nigel Dodds: I want to get back to the Bill’s original purpose. Representatives from Northern Ireland and our constituents have forcefully made the point that it is very disconcerting that a Bill that extends two dates to allow for talks, which are already under way, has been, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), hijacked for other purposes. Some of the debates are not even on issues that directly affect Northern Ireland, such as the change to the definition of marriage and the massive change on abortion, an issue on which there are strong feelings across the board—cross-party and cross-community—in Northern Ireland. Those views differ from those of the proponents—

Nicholas Boles: rose—

Nigel Dodds: No, I do not have time. I only have five minutes, and everyone who wishes to speak will get a chance to do so.
Sadly, when it comes to Northern Ireland debates, the Chamber fills up and people take an interest only when it serves their purposes. I would like to see as many people take an interest in Northern Ireland affairs when we are debating issues that really affect and have a practical impact on the constituents whom we represent. The time devoted to discussing the substantial issues introduced in Committee and in the other place has been woefully short, given their gravity and impact.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has provisions for consultation. If the Government introduced measures that sidestepped that, there would be outrage on the Opposition Benches and, indeed, on the Government Back Benches and on ours. All that has been cast aside, however, because the end justifies the means. Every parliamentary norm and every norm of consultation, consideration and the principle of devolution has been set aside.
People say that this place has a right to act constitutionally and legally. Of course it does, but the reality is that they are being very selective. We are legislating on some of the most contentious and divisive issues, on which there is no consensus, and leaving aside the hundreds of other issues on which there is consensus about the need for a common-sense approach and to take action. Either we have direct rule and legislate on all those areas, or we respect devolution—we cannot have it both ways—and I think we are running very close to the time when that clear choice will have to be made.
Sadly, the issues have been given very little time for discussion—a couple of hours on Monday, a couple of hours in the House of Lords and a few minutes here today. On the fundamental change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, Roman Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and nationalists take a very different view from that of many people in this House, but they have been left to one side. Their views have not been, and are not going to be, listened to as a result of the procedures that have been set out.
This House inserted an abortion provision, which has become clause 9, and it is being imposed on Northern Ireland, even though every Member for Northern Ireland who takes their seat in this House voted against it. The Lords has now rewritten the clause, so the 99 Members  who voted against it on Monday are now faced with a much more radical provision. It makes abortion legal for absolutely any reason, including gender and disability, until a legal presumption of 28 weeks.
There is a provision, of course, to account for viability under the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945—I accept that—but the fact of the matter is that the amendment tabled in the other place would remove the main provision in our law on 22 October without making any provision for a regulatory framework to replace it until the end of March. We will be in limbo between  22 October and 31 March. We may have guidelines, and I hope the Minister will say something about interim regulations to plug that gap.
This is a very serious situation and it is very difficult for most of our constituents—on all sides of the community—to comprehend it. Many people are outraged and very frustrated that this House has acted in this way. Of course it has the right to do so, but given the lack of time, consideration and consultation, to take such drastic steps on a matter of such import and concern, on which there is cross-community consensus on the need to take a more careful and different approach, is completely wrong.

Fiona Bruce: I rise to oppose the totally new Lords-amended clause 9. If the amendment is agreed to, Northern Ireland will have the most permissive abortion law in the British Isles.
The way in which the issue of abortion and, indeed, the Bill has been handled has been, I believe, unconstitutional, undemocratic, legally incoherent and utterly disrespectful to the people of Northern Ireland, yet the Government are pressing on today with just a derisory one hour’s debate. That is despite the fact that abortion is a devolved policy area and a hugely controversial issue, and despite the shamefully limited scrutiny time we have already had.
The decision to fast-track the Bill was considered contentious even in respect of its limited original purposes. The Lords Constitution Committee recently discouraged the use of fast-tracking in the context of Northern Ireland legislation, except for urgent matters. The amendments to change the substantive law on abortion and, indeed, marriage were outside the scope of the Bill and should never have been debated in this place. What are the constitutional implications for the respect of scope for future parliamentary Bills? It is well known that these matters are of particular sensitivity in Northern Ireland.

Nicholas Boles: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am a relatively new Member, but I thought that the determination of what was or was not in scope was for you, Sir, not for us.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am exercising some latitude from the Chair. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is a very committed parliamentarian and she is opining on these matters, and I am very content that she should do so. I am equally content to take the opportunity to assert that there is nothing disorderly whatsoever about these proceedings. I have exercised my judgment and responsibility in the way that I think fit in order to facilitate the House. There is nothing—I repeat: nothing—unconstitutional or improper about that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Fiona Bruce: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to put my opinion on the record in respect of the way the Bill has been extended beyond what I believe what was its original intention. Indeed, I spoke to that effect when it was discussed in the House only a few days ago.
As I say, the laws in this subject area are of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland, many of whom celebrate the fact that 100,000 people are alive in Northern Ireland today as a result of the abortion laws there being different from those here. There has been no consultation with the people of Northern Ireland or their elected representatives on this issue. The democratically elected representatives in Northern Ireland voted not to change the abortion law there in any way as recently as 2016. As such, Northern Ireland’s primary legislation in this policy area enjoys a more democratic recent sanction than that in any other part of the UK: 100% of the Northern Ireland MPs present voted against attempts to change the abortion law just a few days ago.
Yesterday, I had the privilege to deliver personally a letter to the Prime Minister from Northern Ireland MPs, peers, MLAs and 17,000 other residents of Northern Ireland. I have a copy of it with me, and it asks for the withdrawal of this Bill, which the Northern Ireland Attorney General has said is “unclear and inconsistent” with regard to human rights issues. There is a covering note from Baroness O’Loan—I pay tribute to her and the speech she made in the other place on this issue—in which  she says:
“Please do not ignore the concerns of so many, articulated in a couple of days”—
the signatures were gathered in just a few days—
“in response to the fast tracked NI Bill.”
The letter requests that the Bill be reconsidered.
I understand that what has actually happened following the original amendments to the Bill on the issue of abortion is that rather than moving to minimise the constitutional concerns expressed in this place about those changes and the way that Parliament had treated the people of Northern Ireland just a few days ago, Government representatives have met sponsors of the out-of-scope amendments—it is my opinion that they are, Mr Speaker—and worked with them to enhance the efficacy of the provisions.
So much for respecting the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland in terms of their freedom of expression, speech and belief. Let them decide on such sensitive issues. We talk here about the importance of not being colonial, but what is this? Is this what the new colonialism looks like? I will not support clause 9 and I will not support the Bill with clause 9 in it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say what the Government should have done, which was to preserve the integrity of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, respect the Sewel convention and uphold the integrity of the Bill in its intended limited format.

Tom Brake: I rise simply to support the amendment; however, like others, I regret the need for it. It is needed because of the position adopted by one person—the person who will be our next Prime Minister, who, if I recall correctly, did in fact campaign for parliamentary sovereignty but is now dangling the threat of abolishing Parliament over our heads. Even dictators in banana republics are reluctant to deploy that threat. It is shameful.

John Bercow: Has the right hon. Gentleman concluded his oration?

Tom Brake: indicated assent.

John Bercow: He has. We are deeply grateful to him.

Dominic Grieve: I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who both expressed their concern that the House is legislating on Northern Ireland matters. As we have set up a devolved Assembly and Executive, many of the matters with which we are concerned today now are, or should be, the province of that Assembly and that Executive, but good governance cannot exist in the condition of paralysis. Indeed, what we have seen with the passage of this Bill is that this House—very properly, because it is our duty—is paying some attention to the vacuum that exists in the Northern Ireland context, not only in wanting to see an Executive set up but in looking in the meantime at areas where there are concerns about, for example, the law as it currently exists. It is an imperfect way of doing it, but it is not an illegitimate one now.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: rose—

Dominic Grieve: Before I give way, let me just add that the House should be perfectly aware that I abstained on the amendments concerning abortion and same-sex marriage precisely for that reason, but I do not think that it is illegitimate of Members of this House to feel that the time has come to express a view in the absence of an Administration.
Let me turn to the issues relating to Lords amendment 1, which I support, and the amendment to it proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). We face an extraordinary situation. To do its business, the House has to sit. It is perfectly normal for the House to assert that it wants, at various times, to be able to consider issues, particularly in the Northern Ireland context, in which the situation changes rapidly. Yet we have been confronted with a most unusual situation: there is a suggestion that there would be periods when, for other reasons, we would be prevented from sitting. We are responsible for ensuring, or trying to ensure, good governance. I think that is why we have the portcullis as our symbol: we are supposed to be the protectors of the nation.

Oliver Letwin: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend might be willing, particularly as he is a former Attorney General, to join me in stating specifically, for Pepper v. Hart purposes, that the intention of those who have been involved in the preparation of the amendment is uniformly to ensure that it absolutely and explicitly blocks the use of the prerogative power to prorogue our Parliament.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I am entirely happy to make that assertion, because when I realised that it was an issue, I also realised that it was a threat to the good governance of this country and, indeed, to the good governance of Northern Ireland in the run-up to setting up the Executive, which I very much hope will come into being very quickly. That is precisely why we have endeavoured to  do it in a manner that is wholly compatible with the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, as was pointed out, while making it clear that, in the particular context of this legislation, this House wishes to emphasise that Prorogation is not a reason why it should not be meeting to consider these matters on the day appointed.
For those reasons, I commend this amendment to the House, and I shall be supporting it. I also agree with what has been said by others that, if we do not make such an assertion in the light of the extraordinary statements that have been made about how our business might be conducted, our role as that protector of our democracy will be seen to be shot to pieces.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This Bill is an outrage. It is an outrage to common decency in Northern Ireland; it is an outrage because, so far today, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), no one has actually debated its clauses with regard to Northern Ireland. Instead, the Bill has been hijacked and used as a vehicle for every other subject under the sun, and every other fancy that Members have with regard to their own pet subjects, important though they are. It is wrong that Northern Ireland will now be subjected to serious and perverse changes to its laws without proper scrutiny, without proper negotiation and without proper regulation.
Some 66% of the people of Northern Ireland have rejected the fact that Parliament should have a say on the matters that are under discussion in clause 9. In fact, they have said that they should be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes it less likely that a Northern Ireland Assembly will actually be put in place to negotiate, to debate and to legislate on these matters. As has already been said, 17,000 people have signed a letter opposing what is being done today. If we read that across to the British mainland, that is the equivalent of 500,000 signing a petition in a matter of four days.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend share my view that those who say that we must have some governance for Northern Ireland have interfered not only in the devolution settlement, but in a way that makes the law on abortion in Northern Ireland even more draconian than that in the United Kingdom? That is the one part of the United Kingdom where people do not want to see changes in the law on abortion.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The changes that are being proposed and that will affect Northern Ireland are the most extreme laws that will ever affect anyone in the whole United Kingdom with regards to abortion. Those laws will allow the termination of life at the point of birth—[Interruption.] Yes, they do. Those laws will allow the termination of life on a point of disability; and those laws will allow the termination of life based on the sex of the child—laws that are prohibited in this part of the United Kingdom, but that Members will inflict in our part of the United Kingdom to make a cheap political point. How cheap do they hold life? They appear to hold it very low indeed.
I think of the life of a young girl called Grace in Northern Ireland whose parents were told several weeks before her birth that, because of a chromosome disorder,  her life should be terminated. That child is 15 years of age. She is a remarkable young woman, one of the highest achievers in her school—indeed, beyond that, she is a high achiever in life itself—yet today this House wants to destroy her life and would like to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of other unborn lives.

Ed Vaizey: I am one of the signatories to amendment (a) and am therefore rising to support it and the Lords amendments. This is, in fact, the first time that I have spoken on Northern Ireland matters in 14 years in this House, but let me put on record my huge affection for Northern Ireland. I have many friends who live in Northern Ireland and I regularly visit. In fact, let me put it on the record that I bought my first ever lottery ticket on the day of the lottery launch in Ballymena. As Culture Minister, I have visited Derry/Londonderry, which I am pleased to say was the first UK capital of culture, and of course I have visited Belfast many times, not least the Titanic Quarter which has become a fantastic creative hub for Northern Ireland and is where “Game of Thrones” was filmed.
I should also put it on record that it is a matter of profound regret to me that in the past eight weeks of leadership hustings, the two leadership candidates have not visited a single museum, art centre, theatre, architecture firm, design company or film studio, or indeed barely mentioned the fantastic success of the creative industries not only in Northern Ireland, but in the whole of the UK.
One reason why this is the first time I have spoken on Northern Ireland matters is that of course Northern Ireland matters are meant to be devolved. I therefore have enormous sympathy with the points that have been made by the members of the Democratic Unionist party and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), but the fact remains that there is no Executive in residence in Northern Ireland, and there has not been for some considerable time, which is why we are debating Northern Ireland matters—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I have got something wrong, given Mr Speaker’s expression. On the issues of abortion and, indeed, of equal marriage, I have to say to my friends in the DUP that if these matters do come up for debate in this House—and they were conscience votes and free votes—they should not be surprised at all if English Members and Members from other parts of the Union express a view. We also know that those amendments have been put down in such a way that no legislation, no change to the law, will happen if a devolved Executive return to Government.

Emma Little Pengelly: Although the right hon. Gentleman references that there is no devolved Assembly currently in Northern Ireland, what we do know is the will of that Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until this point, the Northern Ireland Assembly have never voted, across all the parties, to liberalise abortion laws in Northern Ireland.

John Bercow: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should not require more than another couple of minutes.

Ed Vaizey: Mr Speaker is exactly right. Having just dealt with the points about abortion and equal marriage in about 30 seconds, let me use the final 30 seconds of my remarks on amendment (a).
I am sure that my friends in the DUP will welcome the fact that we are amending this legislation to ensure that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) mentioned, in the fast-moving environment of Northern Irish politics, where we stand as friends to good governance in Northern Ireland, we want to ensure that this House is ready and able to sit to debate these matters. That is why it is vital that we support this amendment. Those who say that this Bill has been hijacked by Brexit have, in fact, missed the point of the amendment, which is to ensure that we continue to debate these important matters in the months ahead.

Gavin Newlands: I rise to offer the SNP’s support for both Lords amendment 1 and the amendment tabled to it by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
President Tusk asked the UK not to waste its time. Instead, this Government have been self-indulgent, focusing on internal machinations and the leadership election, all while this zombie Parliament is left cooling its heels instead of getting on with the job of dealing with Brexit.
The UK Government’s own analysis shows the catastrophic impact that a no-deal outcome would have, yet some on the Government Benches are still quoting no deal. The default should be to revoke article 50, not to impose a no-deal Brexit. There would be a democratic constitutional crisis were the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to prorogue Parliament. Last week, I said that, given the fact that a clear majority of MPs are opposed to the UK leaving without a deal, the Prorogation of Parliament to facilitate a no-deal would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and entirely untenable. The fact that the Prime Minister in waiting, only elevated to office by Conservative party members, refuses to rule this out tells me that he is unfit for high office.
The Government’s own assessment shows that no deal could leave the UK economy up to 9% smaller after 15 years, and that two of the worst hit areas economically in a no-deal scenario would be Scotland with an 8% hit to GDP and Northern Ireland itself with a hit to GDP of over 9%. Mark Carney, and pretty much everybody else if we are honest, refuted the unsubstantiated suggestion of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip that the WTO—general agreement on tariffs and trade—arrangements would enable the UK to avoid EU tariffs in the event of a no deal. David Watt, lately of the Institute of Directors, said:
“Frankly, it’s difficult to imagine a policy that inflicts more economic harm on the UK and Scotland. The fact that we’ve inflicted this on ourselves simply beggars belief.”
The chief executive of Make UK, representing British manufacturers, said that
“it would be the height of economic lunacy to take the UK out of the EU with no deal in place.”

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: Sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
The Chancellor himself said that leaving with no deal would mean:
“Higher unemployment, lower wages and higher prices in the shops”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 347.]
That is not what the British people voted for in June 2016.
It is clear that neither contender for Conservative leader fully understands the implications of Brexit, or perhaps they simply do not care. Scotland has repeatedly demanded a separate course of action in every vote since the referendum, but this Government have ignored us at every turn. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will not ignore the people of Scotland.

Tony Lloyd: I will begin by making a central point about the Northern Ireland nature of the Bill. The UK Parliament, in the absence of a devolved Assembly, cannot ignore its constitutional duty to act on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Let me also say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that to accuse women like Sarah Ewart and Denise Phelan of being part of a cheap political stunt is outrageous and unworthy of this House.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say many things in this House, but I have not said the words that have been attributed to me from the Labour Front Bench and that should be withdrawn.

John Bercow: I do not recall what the position was, but if a Front Bencher, like any Member, has erred, it is incumbent on that Member to make the appropriate correction.

Tony Lloyd: Mr Speaker, I will check the record, and where appropriate I will apologise to the hon. Gentleman for North Antrim. However, he certainly cast aspersions about cheap politics in his remarks. Let me make some progress because we have very little time.
The remedy for all these things lies in the hands of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. When that Assembly decides to meet and the Executive are reformed, they can take the power to abrogate the bulk of what lies on the face of the Bill. This House has made that very clear commitment to the system of devolution and to the people of Northern Ireland.
I commend the words of the noble Lord Duncan, the Minister in the other House, who has talked about the need to make progress on the question of historical institutional abuse, saying:
“There is urgency… I will commit, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, to the Government introducing primary legislation on historical institutional abuse before the end of the year”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2019; Vol. 798, c. 138.]
That is a very welcome commitment by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government.
I will confine my last few remarks to Lords amendment 1 and the manuscript amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). This is a massively important constitutional issue. In a parliamentary democracy, no Parliament can abrogate both the right to sit and to take action, particularly against the constitutional challenge that a no-deal Brexit would pose and especially in the light of the fact that there will be a Prime Minister who will have a mandate not from the public in general but from a very narrow base within one political party. It is simply unconscionable that this House would not sit.
I say very firmly to my friends in this House from Northern Ireland that they have to recognise that there is nowhere in this United Kingdom of ours that will be more affected by a no-deal Brexit than Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will respond to my next point, which is that if we are moving to a no deal as we get towards October, the Government will have to introduce direct rule in the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly in order to effect the legislation to allow for that no-deal Brexit to take place. In that sense, this House must be in a position to meet to transform the law in order to protect the people of Northern Ireland against the possibility of that no-deal Brexit. This is not grafted on to Northern Ireland legislation; it is absolutely fundamental to the future of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will be supporting the manuscript amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and any consequential amendments.

John Penrose: I agree with the comments made by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House that this was originally a very simple three-clause Bill to change just two dates, and it is now garlanded with baubles; it is a Christmas tree with tinsel, twinkling lights and a honking great star on top to boot. That said, the Government are willing to accept most of the Lords amendments requiring reports to be laid before Parliament on progress towards a whole host of important issues such as transparency, political donations and loans, gambling, suicide prevention and much else.
I do not propose to go in huge detail through all the various amendments being accepted, other than to respond to the leader of the DUP here, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), who specifically asked whether we will end up with some sort of gap in the legal coverage around the abortion amendments—a matter that, as we all know, is an issue of conscience. I reassure him that he is right to say a number of other statutes will persist, notably the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which he mentioned. The Government will try to ensure that we bring forward the new regime as quickly as possible to minimise any gaps that might occur, to create a seamless transition, and to issue guidelines and advice to medical professionals and others to minimise any problems. We look forward to working on and discussing that with him and other people in Northern Ireland in depth, as necessary, to ensure that we come up with a safe transition from today to the intended outcome.
On Lords amendment 1, I have two narrow but important constitutional criticisms, and a broader comment. I will start with the narrow criticisms. I appreciate that constitutional niceties and procedures are not everybody’s cup of tea, but it is worth pointing out that parts of this amendment have already been defeated in the Commons and the rest was ruled out of scope before it even got here. And yet, here we are—being asked to include it because the unelected Lords decided that we should. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to send a respectful but firm message that we appreciate the Lords’ views and will have nothing further to do with it on this occasion.

Andrew Percy: Will the Minister give way?

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

John Penrose: I have very little time. I will take one intervention, from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), but I will then have to make progress.

John Baron: May I just remind the Minister that this amendment has been tabled by those who voted to remain? Speaking as someone who voted to leave and is in a minority in this place, I can assure the Minister that we on our side of the referendum debate would in no way countenance a Prorogation of Parliament, so in many respects these people are tilting at windmills.

John Penrose: I will come to broader comments about the background politics in a second, but my hon. Friend has made his point.
I should also point out that, alone among the various amendments that we are discussing, this one has little to do with Northern Ireland and everything to do with Brexit. All the other amendments deal with important issues specific to Northern Ireland: same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland; abortion in Northern Ireland; suicide prevention in Northern Ireland. But not this one.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister give way on that point?

John Penrose: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
This amendment attempts to bind the UK Parliament for a UK-wide issue. That breaches a pretty important precedent: that we try, at least, to work on a cross-community consensual basis when it comes to Northern Ireland because the sensitivities and the risks are so great, so significant, that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to play political games in such a charged arena.
Furthermore, in this case the Bill stands a decent chance of never becoming law, if the Stormont Assembly restarts before Royal Assent; I am delighted to report that the talks were ongoing yesterday and I believe that they are continuing today. I am sure that everybody here wishes them every success. If the Stormont Assembly restarts before Royal Assent, not only is the amendment dangerously partisan—weaponising a Northern Ireland Bill for Brexit in a way that we usually, rightly, try to avoid—but it could easily put us through all that grief for no good reason at all if it fails to become law. The change would set a constitutional precedent that could last for centuries whether we intend it to or not. We should not do it like this—not in this Bill, and not in this way.
I have directly opposed the specifics of the amendment; I now come to a broader point about the politics behind it, which should inform all of us as we decide how we will vote in a minute. I am sure that we are all democrats here: first, last and always. Even though I and many others originally voted remain in the EU referendum three years ago, I have since become, like many others, a strong and doughty backer of the democratic decision to leave. Many of us would far prefer to leave with a sensible deal, but if that is not possible and it comes down to a choice between no deal and no Brexit, then,  reluctantly but firmly, I choose no deal. [Interruption.] I do not have time to give way; I am down to my last  90 seconds.
Many colleagues on both sides of the House, including a couple of signatories to the amendment, now feel the same way. We have been going at this for three years. The country sent us all a very clear message at the polls in May that they want this done. We have reached a narrowing funnel where our choices are getting fewer and fewer, and we are running out of road. The time, and voters’ tolerance for our failing to address that central issue, is running out. For many of us, the problem with the amendment is not about more or less democracy; it is that it is pretending to be democratic but in reality it is trying to prevent the democratic referendum decision from ever happening at all.
I have a challenge for the backers of this amendment; it will be hugely reassuring to moderate, former remainer Brexiteers such as myself. If it finally comes down, this autumn, to the stark and simple choice between no deal and no Brexit, which will you choose? Will you promise to honour the democratic decision or will you not? If you cannot make that commitment and that pledge, I am afraid that voters will conclude that this is a stitch-up—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The House must come to order.

John Penrose: Voters will conclude that this is a clever piece of procedure that pretends to care about democracy, but in reality is trying to prevent a decision that has already been taken from ever happening at all.
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 8 July).
The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 be made.

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 274.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 1.
The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1, as amended.—(John Penrose.)

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 315.
Question accordingly negatived.
Lords amendment 1, as amended, agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 2 to 18.—(John Penrose.)

The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 65.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.

POINTS OF ORDER

Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think convention says that a Bill that has got this far in both Houses is rightfully the property of Parliament rather than the Executive. Both Houses have spoken very clearly about the constitutional nature of this Bill, and you have ruled that it is completely in order. However, there are rumours—perhaps fallacious—that the Government are thinking of pulling the Bill. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that that would be unconscionable and unacceptable, and that you would not be supportive of any such move?

John Bercow: I think that it would be quite extraordinary, but I have no expectation of it, and I am fortified, reinforced, and encouraged in my view by the clear sedentary head-shaking of no less a figure than the Patronage Secretary, aided and abetted by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). They are both signalling that the Government have no intention of abandoning the Bill, and the Chief Whip, having shaken his head, is now in a position, if he so wishes, to nod his assent to the proposition that I have just made.

John Penrose: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I, on his behalf, confirm that?

John Bercow: I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) is satisfied. I thank the occupants of the Treasury Bench.

Emma Little Pengelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill that we have just debated contains clauses inviting the Government to make progress towards the implementation of a “severely injured” pension for victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There has been considerable distress in Northern Ireland because of concerns about the criteria, and a report has suggested that terrorists who went out to murder and maim and ended up injuring themselves may be eligible for such a pension. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to debate those issues today owing to the nature of the proceedings. While I welcome the comments of Lord Duncan in the other place, may I ask whether there will be any opportunities—perhaps next week—for these matters to be aired, debated and hopefully answered in this House? I should be very much obliged.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, to which the answer is yes: there could well be such opportunities. The hon. Lady would not expect me to commit myself now—on the hoof, if you will—in respect of the form that such an opportunity might take, but we have four sitting days next week before we rise for the summer recess. This is a matter of the utmost importance, and, indeed, considerable sensitivity. In the short time during which I have come to know the hon. Lady, I have come to be aware of how dexterous she is in the use of parliamentary time, and if she wishes to take her opportunities, I think that she will not be disappointed.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It concerns the decision that the House has now taken to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland by repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This means that the abortion law in Northern Ireland will be more liberal than in England and Wales. Women will no longer be subject to criminal sanction in Northern Ireland, but, of course, the law has not been repealed for women in England and Wales, who remain subject to the criminal law. If, for example, they buy abortion tablets on the internet, they can still face prosecution. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the Government have given any indication that they will make a statement to the House next week to ensure that women in England and Wales are treated as fairly now as we hope they will be in Northern Ireland.

John Bercow: I have not yet received any such indication, but, as I indicated in response to the previous point of order, there is time for these matters to be aired. There could be a Government statement, but in the absence thereof, there are other ways in which to secure parliamentary time. I think I would command the assent of the House if I said of the hon. Lady that the word “indefatigable” could have been invented to describe her campaigning zeal. I am very confident that if she wishes to raise the matter in the Chamber next week, she will be able to do so.
If there are no further points of order—and I thank colleagues for their interest, attention and patience—we will now come to the Back-Bench motion on the Bishop of Truro’s report on the persecution of Christians overseas. We are already having to start this debate later than any of us would have liked. The occupant of the Chair who succeeds me will do his best to protect the time for it, and it would be appreciated if colleagues who wish to conduct conversations on other matters would leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that those who wish to get on with this important debate can do so unimpeded and with appropriate attention.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS OVERSEAS

Chris Philp: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the persecution of Christians overseas; supports freedom of religion or belief in all countries throughout the world; welcomes the work undertaken by the Bishop of Truro in this area; and calls on the Government to do more with the diplomatic and other tools at its disposal to prevail on the governments of countries in which persecution of Christians is tolerated or encouraged to end that persecution and to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief.
I thank, especially, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), for their work in securing the debate. I congratulate the Bishop of Truro on his report, which was published 10 days ago. I also thank Open Doors and Aid to the Church in Need for their tireless work on this issue.
Around the world, there are horrifying stories of Christians being attacked and often killed, of churches being destroyed, and of Christians being persecuted and prevented from worshipping. This is happening on an industrial scale in multiple countries. Often, the Governments in those countries turn a blind eye, or are even responsible for the persecution themselves. Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. The International Society of Human Rights says that 80% of religious persecution in the world is against Christians. Open Doors estimates that 245 million Christians around the world—one in nine—face persecution. Here are some examples.
In April 2017, a young Nigerian woman, Dorkas Zakka, was murdered, along with 12 others, simply for attending an Easter mass. Local priest Father Alexander Yeycock said that Nigerian military units stood by and did nothing while the murders took place. In November 2017, in Mina, Egypt, a mob surrounded a Coptic church threatening worshippers inside, many of whom were also physically attacked. Local Coptic leader Anba Macarius said that the Egyptian authorities had done nothing to bring those responsible to justice.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is describing very accurately what is happening to Christians across the world. Given the involvement of the authorities in the two countries that he has mentioned, and in many other countries—countries to which we give considerable aid in the form of money, expert advice and so on—does he believe that the Government could put more pressure on them by withdrawing that aid, or at least threatening to do so?

Chris Philp: Yes, I completely agree with that point and will discuss it shortly. We give lots of money to countries where the Governments themselves are turning a blind eye to, or even themselves actively encouraging or carrying out, persecution, and we should be attaching conditions to the aid we give and in extreme cases even withdrawing it entirely; I therefore agree completely with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
In Pakistan, Christian woman Asia Bibi was sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2010. She is now in safety in Canada, but the very cell in which she was incarcerated now holds Shagufta Kausar, a Christian 45-year-old mother of four who was sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2014; the very cell that Asia Bibi was held in now contains another Christian woman, also under sentence of death.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying. He mentioned the issue of Asia Bibi and Pakistan. Many in this House have said from the very beginning of that case that Asia was being persecuted for her faith and that countries around the world, in line with their religious belief and commitment, should have offered her asylum. The United Kingdom should have done that; we did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that after this report our foreign policy must change, so that rather than hiving off our responsibility on religious freedom to Canada and other countries, we should offer asylum to those being persecuted like Asia Bibi?

Chris Philp: That is a question that requires very serious consideration, and of course there are many persecuted Christians from countries such as Iraq and Syria who might wish to seek asylum as well.
Last year, again in Pakistan, Suneel Saleem was beaten to death by a group of doctors—a group of doctors—in the Services hospital in Lahore when he protested about the anti-Christian abuse his heavily pregnant sister had suffered at the hospital. The US State Department says that the Pakistani Government themselves have
“engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom”.
Yet, just a few weeks ago Pakistan’s Foreign Minister speaking in Brussels dismissed concerns as being “whipped up” by “western interests.” His attitude is not acceptable, especially bearing in mind that the UK Government send £463 million a year in aid to Pakistan—it is the single biggest recipient of UK overseas aid, but we do not attach conditions about ending persecution of religious minorities.
The litany of persecution goes on. In May 2017 two churches in Sudan were destroyed on the orders of the Government. In June 2017 some 33 Christian women in Eritrea were imprisoned by the Eritrean Government simply for taking part in prayer. And in India, 24,000 Christians were physically assaulted last year. Prime Minister Modi dismissed that as “imaginary fears”; he is wrong and we should say so.

Lisa Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on a very important issue. Does he agree that we must also be very careful that individuals in this country have freedom of religious belief, particularly given the level of abuse and intolerance following the votes last week on abortion? Does he also agree that we should decry the fact that at St Vincent de Paul parish in East Kilbride in my constituency parishioners arrived this morning to find that their Our Lady of the Grotto had been destroyed by mindless vandals? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these issues are also troubling people across the United Kingdom?

Chris Philp: The hon. Lady is right. Of course, the first place that we should champion and protect religious freedom is here in the United Kingdom; that is of course our first duty as Members of Parliament, but let us not forget the duty we also owe to persecuted minorities around the world—to stand up and protect them as well.
In Saudi Arabia public places of Christian worship are banned. There are regular crackdowns and raids on private Christian ceremonies, and Christians in Saudi Arabia are regularly imprisoned. Saudi Arabian schools use textbooks that teach hatred against Christians and Jews, and the country’s Grand Mufti recently said that Christianity is not a religion.
Christians are often a target for religious extremists. The terrible attack in Sri Lanka at Easter this year saw 259 people murdered by Islamist extremists, and on Palm Sunday in Egypt in 2017 ISIS bombers murdered 45 Coptic Christians. In Pakistan the year before, again at Easter, the Taliban murdered 75 Christians. These are just a few of the terrible examples of the persecution and murder that Christians around the world are suffering.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and the Bishop of Truro’s report is a very strong one, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would also recognise that there are terrible cases of persecution against other religions elsewhere in the world, of which that against the Muslim Rohingya in Burma is one of worst recent examples. Does he agree that there are cases about religions in general which the Foreign Office should also be considering in its policy?

Chris Philp: Yes, of course the Foreign Office should take a strong position on the persecution of any religious minorities, and of course the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma is a particularly egregious example. I am certainly not saying that we should ignore other examples of persecution, but I am drawing the House’s attention to the fact that 80% of religious persecution around the world is committed against Christians, and we should be mindful of that.

Stephen Doughty: I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about this situation, which is deeply horrific. I, too, spoke on an Open Doors panel, at the Labour party conference last year. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; does he accept that there is a fundamental problem here in that we have a series of alliances and relationships with these countries, but often turn a blind eye to the fact that they are persecuting Christians and indeed other religious minorities? Does he also agree that there is another problem in that we often do not know how many Christians are even in those countries, because people are fearful of stating what their religion is in the first place?

Chris Philp: I agree with both points—not knowing how many people are affected and the fact that we have quite close relationships with some of these countries.
For western Governments to fail to act makes us in many ways complicit in some of these outrages. As the noble Lord Alton has argued many times, failing to stand up to protect minorities simply serves to encourage the persecutors. Lord Alton has often referred to the fact that the world’s indifference made possible the slaughter  of 1.5 million Christian Armenians between 1915 and 1917. He makes the point that ignoring some of these atrocities encourages even worse atrocities to be perpetrated in the future; Lord Alton has made that point very powerfully on many occasions.
Against that backdrop, the Bishop of Truro’s work has never been more important, and I fully support his report. The Bishop finds that the persecution and murder of Christians around the world is
“the most shocking abuse of human rights in the modern era.”
In particular, I support the Bishop’s call for a UN resolution stating that those countries that are responsible for tolerating or encouraging the persecution of Christians and religious minorities must instead protect them.

Bob Stewart: I am afraid I have seen instances of Christians killing Christians; obviously, I am referring to Bosnia, where I witnessed that. So it is not just other religions having a go at Christians; it is actually Christians on Christians—almost blue on blue.

Chris Philp: I am aware of my hon. Friend’s military service in Bosnia and the fact that he was in the country when the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 took place, and we should be mindful of those sorts of atrocities as well as the other ones we are talking about today.
I also support the Bishop of Truro’s call for the Government and the UN to impose sanctions on those countries who fail to protect religious minorities, and I also support his call for British diplomatic staff to be trained on this issue and for it to be made a priority of British foreign policy to put pressure on Governments who are turning a blind eye to this.
There is even more we can do. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) suggested in his intervention, many of the countries where the persecution of Christians is tolerated or even state-sponsored receive direct foreign aid from the United Kingdom. Many of those countries will wish to secure trade and investment deals with us and many of them also buy arms from the UK, which requires a UK Government export licence. I would like to see the UK Government do more to link overseas aid, trade and arms exports to real progress in tackling the persecution of religious minorities. Why should we send British taxpayers’ money to a Government, or indeed sell them arms, when they allow or encourage the persecution of religious minorities? Ideally, we should ensure that these steps are taken on a multinational basis, together with our European Union and United Nations partners, but if that cannot be secured, the UK should be prepared to act alone. The UK Government cannot and must not simply mouth platitudes; we must take real action. By approving the motion today, this House will make clear its view. The Government should then act.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I ask Members to be very strict about this; otherwise, some are going to drop off the list and I do not want that to happen.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who made a very thoughtful speech.  Mention has been made of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), and I want to thank them for requesting this debate and for their tireless campaigning work in this area. Above all, I think we would all wish to thank the non-governmental organisations, including Open Doors, that have kept these issues in our consciousness for years. We must also thank our constituents who have kept Members across the House informed, and I would like to thank the members of the Penycae Neighbourhood Church of the Nazarene who have kept me informed of meetings that have been happening.
Freedom of belief is a basic human right. It is not a western construct; it is a basic fact of being human. Article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights makes it clear that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes a person’s freedom to change their religion or belief and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest their religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
I commend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the work that the Bishop of Truro has done in looking at the specific issue of persecution against Christians, simply because of the scale of it. Open Doors is now saying that extreme persecution has increased from being found in one country to 11 countries over five years. There has been a rise in hate speech in state media and by religious leaders. This House, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives have declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minorities—for example, against the Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims—met the tests of genocide. I would like to see that recognised by the UK Government.
However inconvenient it might be for politicians from western democracies, we must recognise that part of that universal declaration includes the right to convert or to change religion or belief, including the right to have no belief, which is a fundamental part of religious freedom. This is not about western values; it is about universal human values, and any extreme form of nationalism that does not allow for conversion goes against that fundamental tenet.
Mention has rightly been made of the Commonwealth, which has a real role to play in this. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a total obscenity. They are not somehow loosely based on the codification of laws in the 1860s. Since the 1980s, crimes under these laws have increased, prejudicing religions including certain types of Islam and Christianity, and that is a disgrace.
I would also like us to reflect on an issue of general concern—the death penalty. We have seen an increased use of the death penalty, and the Centre for Social Justice in Pakistan has stated that its use has increased for people accused of blasphemy. In the United States, 29 states still use the death penalty, including some that still use a firing squad. It is simply unacceptable to those of us in the west who wish to advocate on this issue that the US still has the death penalty, and I urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to challenge it. I also urge everyone in the US who cares about the persecution of Christians to question the use of the death penalty in that country. Lastly, I think we must all take responsibility. I do not want to be partisan, but  when people describe Muslim women wearing burqas as looking like letterboxes, that is irresponsible, wherever it comes from. We have to protect these freedoms.

Sarah Newton: As the Bishop of Truro’s local MP, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate in support of his excellent report. It has become a custom in this House to give a voice to the voiceless. This enables us to ground our debate in the real-life experiences of our constituents and draw on their expertise. I want to use the short time I have available today to give voice to the Bishop himself, as he cannot speak in this debate. I had planned to read out his personal introduction to his report, but time allows me to refer only to a few extracts from the six reasons for the review.
First, to understand why the review is justified we have to appreciate that today the Christian faith is primarily a phenomenon of the global south, and that it is therefore primarily a phenomenon of the global poor. Western voices that are quick to speak up for the world’s poor cannot afford to be blind to this issue. Secondly, this particular focus is justified because Christian persecution, like no other, is a global phenomenon. Thus Christian persecution is not limited to one context or challenge. Thirdly, Christian persecution is a human rights issue and should be seen as such. Freedom of religion or belief is perhaps the most fundamental human right, because so many others depend on it. If freedom of religion or belief is removed, so many other rights are put in jeopardy too.
Fourthly, this is not about special pleading for Christians, but about making up a significant deficit. In that sense it is an equality issue. If one minority is on the receiving end of 80% of religiously motivated discrimination, it is simply unjust that that minority should receive so little attention. Fifthly, this is also about being sensitive to discrimination against, and persecution of, all minorities. Because the Christian faith is perhaps the one truly global faith, it has become a bellwether for repression more generally. Renewing the focus on Christian persecution is therefore a way of expressing our concern for all minorities who find themselves under pressure.
Finally, historically and theologically, the Christian faith has always been subversive. “Jesus is Lord” is the earliest Christian creed, and those were not empty words. Rather, they explain why the Christian faith attracted persecution from the earliest days. To say “Jesus is Lord” was to say that Caesar was not the Lord, as he claimed to be, so from its earliest days the Christian faith presented a radical challenge to any power that made absolute claims for itself. The Christian faith should make no absolutist political claims for itself, but it will always challenge those who do. Indeed, the Christian faith’s inherent challenge to absolutist claims explains why it has been such a key foundation stone of western democratic government, and why we should continue to support it vigorously wherever it is under threat. The focus of the review’s recommendations is clearly on guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief for all, irrespective of faith, tradition or belief system, and taking full account of the scale, scope and severity of its abuse in various contexts. We must seek freedom of  religion or belief for all, without fear or favour. That is something that the whole House can agree on, and I very much support the motion.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate on this important issue. I would like to start, as others have done, by paying tribute to the Bishop of Truro for his important and wide-ranging report. It not only highlights many issues that we need to think about but points to how we might build a better and more tolerant world for all of us. Although I do not subscribe to the Foreign Secretary’s newfound views on Britain leaving the European Union with no deal, I do thank him for establishing the independent review into the extent and nature of the global persecution of Christians and committing to assess the quality of the response from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Government more generally.
Since April this year, I have had the good fortune and immense honour to represent my home and my community in Newport West. It is one of the most diverse and multicultural parts of Wales, and people from all communities and all cultures are able to practise and embrace their faiths there. I know that colleagues across the House believe in the importance of all communities and all people having the chance to do that right across the world, too. I thank the Bishop for making it very clear at the outset that this review is not about pitting one faith against another or about legitimising the hatred and loathing of Islam or Judaism. This is about ensuring that all our faiths are respected, and that all those who practise are free to do so safely and peacefully.

Rehman Chishti: I completely agree with the hon. Lady when she says this is about ensuring that people can practise their faith, whatever it may be. As somebody who comes from a Muslim faith and whose father, grandfather and uncles were all imams, I know that Islam itself says, “La iqra ha fiddin”: people should be able to practise their faith whatever it is—there is no compulsion. As this report sets out, religious freedom is not only a civil right, but pretty much the fundamental core of people’s own faith and scriptures: to respect each other’s faith.

Ruth Jones: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The persecution of Christians across the world is attracting ever more focus and attention. This point is exemplified by the fact that the review was meant to conclude by Easter 2019, but as the scale of the task became clear, deadlines were pushed back to ensure there was enough time for the fullest of reports to be published.
As I have already said, the persecution of Christians is an increasing concern to me and to many of my constituents. I thank all those—Christian and non-Christian—who have written to me asking me to speak up for them in this debate. We must, as the Bishop notes, recognise that this is not a western problem, that many of the poorest in our world are Christians, and that they need our solidarity and support. It is easy to brush this off, but there are people living in fear, people living with often devastating consequences and people who need the British Government to stand up for them. This need to stand with them is why it is so important that the British Government get to grips with this.
Of course, it is not just us; we need to work with our partners in the Commonwealth of Nations, to raise these issues in the Security Council at the United Nations and, whatever happens with our relationship with the European Union, to work with Europe too. I know that the Foreign Secretary may not be in his place next week—who knows, he could be in No. 10—but I hope that, whoever steps into the role next week, he or she will maintain an interest in and focus on these really important issues.
I welcome the 22 recommendations in the Bishop’s report, particularly the focus on working together with our international and regional partners and allies. We must ensure that civil society plays its role in shaping views and protecting minorities. We have seen what happened with the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and with the Christians in the middle east and other places. The British Government can and should become a leader in defending freedom of expression and of faith too.
Like my constituents back home in Newport West, I was struck by a quote in the report of William Wilberforce saying in this very Chamber in 1791 that
“you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know”.
Our task in this Chamber and in our communities is to ensure that we do not look the other way, and that we do not walk by on the other side either.

Andrew Griffiths: I do not know whether I should start by declaring an interest in that I am a Christian who has newly found faith, but it is really exciting to see so many Members of all parties in this House wanting to take part in this debate. It is a shame that we are limited to such a short time today, because there are so many MPs who want to get in and make their points.
First, I want to pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his work in bringing about this important report. There was that old adage in No. 10 Downing Street  that “We don’t do God”, but that was in a previous Administration. Christians in this country have often thought that there was a sniffiness about Christianity. All too often since I have found faith, I have heard the words “Oh, they’re do-gooders”, and a Church of England vicar sent me an email about “Jesus freaks”. We seem to do down Christianity in this country somewhat, and it is important that the Foreign Secretary has put this front and centre of the work of the Foreign Office.
We are a multicultural and multi-faith society, and we should embrace and champion that, but when we see that 80% of all religious persecutions around the world are persecutions of Christians, it is important that we as a nation stand up and say that we will not accept this and are going to come to the aid of those Christians around the world. In the same way that we deplore it and speak out when the Rohingya are persecuted in Myanmar, the Yazidis in Iraq and the Uyghur Muslims in China, so we must, with all our might and all our voice, speak out in defence of Christians around the world.
It touched me recently when, at the church that I attend in Uttoxeter—the Renew Church—we had Open Doors come and present to us one Sunday. The scale at which Christian persecution around the world is taking place is scary, as is the speed at which it is increasing.

Jeremy Lefroy: I very much thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. Does he agree that we should approach all this in a real spirit of humility, because we ourselves in this country have seen religious persecution over the centuries? However, we know what it is to put that behind us, and the advantages it brings to our society when we do not do it any more. I myself come from a Huguenot background: we fled to this country because of religious persecution elsewhere. British people have had to flee to the low countries—the Netherlands—because of persecution here. We need to approach this in a spirit of humility, as well as of upholding the name of Jesus Christ.

Andrew Griffiths: I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. He is a true example of somebody who is living a Christian life, and he is absolutely right when he says that the UK was the first country to establish human rights such as freedom of religion. It was us who established this, and spread it around the world—to America, and to Australia and New Zealand. It was in 1547 that the freedom to read the Bible in public was first established, and it was 1559 when we first had the freedom to interpret the Bible without Government interference. There are centuries of examples of Britain leading the way in protecting religious freedoms of all kinds, and certainly in standing up for Christianity.

Shailesh Vara: At the outset, my hon. Friend mentioned that we had cross-party support for this motion. May I gently add that that support is not only cross party but multi-faith among the Members of Parliament here?
Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has a significant role on the global stage—we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, head of the Commonwealth and a major economic power—and that we use our influence on the global stage for a whole variety of reasons and causes, and should ensure that the protection of Christians is put high on the list and that we use our influence for that purpose as well?

Andrew Griffiths: My hon. Friend speaks with great common sense, as always. I am very proud to represent a multicultural, multi-faith community. I have some 7,000 Muslims in my community, and they make a massive contribution to my society and it is a joy to be their Member of Parliament. He is absolutely right that we have this historical connection and historical influence with which we can do good. We can use that for the benefit of Christians, for the benefit of religious freedoms and for the benefit of democracy around the world.
In many respects, because of our history, we almost shy away from confrontation. Because of that colonial past, we are often too afraid to be seen to be interfering in the business of other independent nations. Actually, as we heard in the magnificent opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), whom I commend for securing this debate, we see that effect on a global scale, and it is only right for Britain to stand up and take its responsibility seriously.
I pay tribute to the Bishop of Truro for his brilliant, incisive work, but I hope that this is just the first step towards the Government standing up and taking religious persecution and the persecution of Christians very seriously. A bit like a stick of Blackpool rock, I want this to run  through the middle of all our Foreign Office policy, aid and trade. We have the levers to change behaviour and save lives. When people are being victimised, persecuted, murdered, stabbed and bullied simply for reading the Bible and worshipping Jesus Christ, we must act. The Bible states that Christ said:
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”
I absolutely believe that this motion is an important step forward in ensuring the safety of Christians around the world.

Brendan O'Hara: I begin by adding my congratulations to the Bishop of Truro on the publication of his excellent report and by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the hon. Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing today’s debate. I also put on the record my appreciation for the work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief in promoting the right of people of faith or none to have the freedom to pursue their beliefs. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our best wishes to Catherine Thane, who until recently was the operations director for the APPG and who was married to George on Saturday.
I thank all those people for being such a powerful voice for persecuted Christians around the world because, sadly, that voice is necessary now more than ever. No matter where one looks in the world right now, anti-Christian discrimination and persecution is on the rise.

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brendan O'Hara: I will not give way, because of the time.

Lindsay Hoyle: No, you will be all right. You will get an extra minute.

Brendan O'Hara: Okay. I will give way.

Emma Little Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important aspects of this report is that right across the United Kingdom, including within churches, there is still significant ignorance and a lack of knowledge about the sheer scale of the persecution of Christians right across the world? One of the things that we can do as Christians and as Members of Parliament is raise that awareness through the likes of this report and these debates.

Brendan O'Hara: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As Christians in this country, we have become very comfortable in our freedom to believe as we do, and we should always have at the forefront of our minds that our brothers and sisters around the world are not in such a privileged position. His Holiness Pope Francis said recently:
“It might be hard for us to believe, but there are more martyrs today than in the first centuries. They are persecuted because they speak the truth and proclaim Jesus Christ to this society.”
Increasingly, however, society’s response to those speaking that truth is to imprison torture, kidnap or murder them. As we have heard, the Open Doors charity publishes an annual watchlist of countries where it believes persecution to be extreme, very high or high. One country was on that list five years ago: North Korea. Today, no fewer than 11 countries are considered to be in the extreme category, and we have all watched in horror the systematic attempt to eradicate all traces of Christianity from the ancient middle east homeland that we all love.
Of course, many charities and NGOs are working hard and doing some great work, and I pay tribute to the work done by Aid to the Church in Need, which funds over 5,000 projects in 140 countries each year, helping to support persecuted Christians live out their faith and provide practical and spiritual support to millions of people. In January, I was privileged to join Aid to the Church in Need on a visit to Lebanon and the Syrian border to see that practical and spiritual support and action for myself. We met Christian families who had fled Syria, Iraq and other places in the middle east to seek refuge in Lebanon and who would be destitute were it not for the day-to-day support and pastoral care provided by ACN.
On the feast of the Epiphany in January, in the town of Zahlé on the Syrian border, we went to a food centre called Saint John the Merciful Table, where ACN, along with the Melkite Greek Catholic archdiocese, provides 1,000 people with a hot meal every single day. It was a small but wonderful example of how Christian organisations are helping those fleeing persecution.
However, given the number of people in need, the situation cannot be left to charities and NGOs, which is why I commend the Bishop of Truro’s report. I sincerely hope that the Government take heed of what it says and act upon its recommendations. In particular, I urge the Government to heed his words about the UK being a global leader when it comes to championing the freedom of religion or belief across the world. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Croydon South that the UK Government must be prepared to impose meaningful sanctions against perpetrators who abuse the religious belief of others.
Finally, as the chair of the all-party group on the Yazidi people, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the genocide, I highlight the Bishop’s recommendation that the Foreign Office should take a lead role in pursuing the prosecution of the perpetrators of sex crimes against Yazidi and Christian women, and not only as terrorists.

Andrew Selous: On 31 May 2014, The Times newspaper had an editorial headlined “Spectators at the Carnage”. This was a charge against western politicians—we in this Chamber and others throughout the western world—who have not taken this issue sufficiently seriously. I am very grateful to my Friends who have brought this debate to Parliament.
Like many others, I follow what Open Doors says. We know from its report that some 245 million Christians are at “high”, “very high” or “extreme” risk of persecution. That figure is rising—only a few years ago, there were 200 million, so the situation is getting worse. In China, over 1,000 Christians have been detained without trial  or have been unfairly arrested and hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims are being interred or the families are being separated. In Nigeria, 3,731 Christians were killed for their faith. The situation in China is getting worse: on the Open Doors world watch list, it has risen from 43rd to 27th place—a significant deterioration. For the first time, India has entered the top 10 countries of most concern.
The figures for deaths and for churches destroyed around the world are really serious. In 2016, there were over 4,000 deaths in Nigeria, with 198 churches destroyed. In the Central African Republic, 1,269 Christians were killed and 131 churches were destroyed. In Chad, 750 Christians were killed and 10 churches were destroyed. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 467 Christians were killed and 13 churches were destroyed. In Kenya, 225 Christians lost their lives, and in Cameroon 114 Christians were killed, with 10 churches destroyed. This is happening on a very large scale. William Wilberforce said to this House in 1791 that
“you may choose to look the other way but you can never…say that you did not know”.
That is as relevant now as it was then.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend has put forward a concerning picture from around the world. On addressing that challenge, does he agree with the former Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who said that the greater use of our aid for persecuted Christian communities around the world is something that we should seriously consider? He gave the example of supporting the Iraqi Christian homes on the Nineveh plains and listed a number of others. As a passionate supporter of international development aid, I ask my hon. Friend: should that now be targeted to support persecuted Christian communities around the world?

Andrew Selous: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I will illustrate the sort of thing that is going on by quoting Bishop William Naga of Borno, who said of some of the refugee camps in Nigeria:
“When the care of the camps was handed over to other organisations, the discrimination started. They will give food to the refugees, but if you are a Christian they will not give you food. They will even openly tell you that the relief is not for Christians. There is an open discrimination.”
It is really important that DFID, if it is involved in helping those refugees, makes sure that British aid is going to everyone who needs it, regardless of their faith, and that that sort of discrimination is not allowed to happen. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to make sure that where overseas aid, trade and arms exports are concerned, they should be subject to requiring robust action on dealing with persecution.

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Like him, I pay tribute to the work of Witney-based Open Doors for its powerful advocacy on this very serious issue. He mentions Nigeria, and one of Open Doors’ other points is that progress should be pursued in areas where progress has already been made. Perhaps if the Foreign Office were to engage alongside the Government of Nigeria, as they already have, great progress will continue to be made.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I am grateful to him for putting it on the record.
This is a harrowing debate—rightly, because we need to bring these matters into the public domain, and to keep doing so until things get better. However, I end my speech by drawing the House’s attention to examples of one people group or faith coming to the aid of another that is being persecuted. In the second world war, when Jews were being rounded up into railway trucks for deportation, the Patriarch of Romania, in full ecclesiastical dress, came to the station and quoted the words of Ruth from the Old Testament:
“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”
We need more of that type of intervention.
In Pakistan, about which we have heard quite a lot today, on the Sunday a week after the Peshawar bomb, Muslims formed a human chain around some churches to protect Christians who were going to worship. In Oman, a Muslim country, it is possible for Christians to worship openly in the Jesus the Good Shepherd church in Muscat; I have been able to worship there myself. That is an example that other Muslim countries should follow. In Mandera in Kenya, Muslims stood up for Christians who were being attacked, saying, “You kill all of us or you kill none of us.”
As I say, this is rightly a grim debate, because these facts deserve much greater circulation, and all of us want follow-through from the Government. However, it is important to look at how we can do things differently, and to look at signs of hope and examples of people from one faith standing up against the persecution of people from another.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for commissioning this excellent report. He has taken a bold and important step in opening the Government up to challenge. He did that for good reason. We all look forward to the Government following through on the recommendations, as they very much need to.

David Drew: I follow on from my dear friend the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in giving a big thank you to the Foreign Office. I also thank the Bishop of Truro for conducting this investigation, and the hon. Members who managed to get this debate. Of all the excellent organisations that have been name-checked, I particularly praise Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I have made two visits abroad with it. The first was to Nigeria, where I witnessed the words of the Bishop of Jos, whose wife was raped by extremists. He gave a graphic account of what things are like in northern Nigeria.
I also visited Pakistan, where I met the inestimable Shahbaz Bhatti, who was the Minister for Minorities. He was slaughtered for his beliefs. I hope that in due course the Catholic Church will recognise what that wonderful man has done. Pakistan is an interesting country; it has people of all persuasions in its Government, but Shahbaz always knew that he took the risk of losing his life, though he carried on nevertheless.
I spend a lot of time worrying about Sudan. It is obvious what is going on there. I got very interested in it because of the religious divide, but when I learned more about the situation, I found that it is not just Muslims against Christians; the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about Christians sometimes fighting  Christians, and sadly that happens in southern Sudan. Also, religion is used as a franchise, and people of extreme views use those views to maintain power. I ask the Government to keep a very close eye on the Christians who remain in the north in Sudan, of whom there are many millions, and to try to bring peace to the south.
In the two minutes remaining to me, I will concentrate on a couple of points in the Bishop’s report that are worthy of emphasis. First, it is very important that our embassies and those who advocate on behalf of the British Government recognise the importance of freedom of religious belief, are properly trained, and look out for it. That is an important recommendation from the Bishop, and I hope that the Minister will take it up. Often there are other connected issues, such as sexuality and gender. It is important that we tease away what may be a veneer of religion and look below the surface.
At the end of the day, we are talking about the mass exodus of Christians from many places in the world. That is unacceptable and we as Christians have to do something about it. We must talk about it in this place and represent those communities. Of course, this is not just about Christians. The Ahmadis have already been mentioned, and the Baha’is are another religious group who are heavily discriminated against in many parts of the world.
In conclusion, the one blemish—I was sad about this —is that the Bishop was called in by the Israeli ambassador to be admonished about the fact that he chose to mention Israel and Palestine as a reason why Christians have left the middle east. It is important that we stand with the Bishop and make it clear that, whatever the discrimination, those who may not be openly discriminatory are still, none the less, covertly allowing such things to go on. We should stand with the Bishop in what he has said and done, and in how we follow up on it.

Theresa Villiers: Just a few months ago, this Chamber stood shocked in the aftermath of the appalling Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka. It is so sad to have heard in this debate that that was just one of the most recent of a whole series of terrible atrocities committed against Christians in many parts of the world.
I was struck by the quote from The Times that the Bishop of Truro put at the start of his report:
“Across the globe, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.”
That is a pithy summary of the terrible injustice on which we are reflecting.
Christian persecution is a global phenomenon with multiple drivers. It is very important to remember that Christianity is not just a religion of the west—it is a genuinely global faith. The victims of persecution are, in the main, from some of the poorest and most deprived communities on earth. Open Doors has identified in a succession of “World Watch List” reports the worrying phenomenon that, where Christians are in the minority, they are increasingly portrayed as somehow western or alien, despite the fact that their communities date back hundreds of years in their home countries.
That is a particular problem in the middle east. Christians have been living in the middle east since the earliest days of the faith. They have an unbroken presence of 2,000 years in the middle east, and yet they are under pressure in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen; and, of course, horrific atrocities have been committed against them in the region, including gender-based violence.
The situation is so severe that the very survival of Christianity as a living religion in the middle east is now in doubt. A century ago, 20% of the population was Christian, but now, according to the report, the figure has fallen to 5%. It is distressing to read the Bishop of Truro’s finding that some of Christianity’s
“oldest and most enduring communities”
are facing what he calls “decimation”. There are tragic parallels with the situation of the Jewish community, whose connection with that region goes back just as far and who were largely forced out—800,000 of them were forced out—in the years between 1948 and the 1970s. My terrible fear is that history is repeating itself.
In responding to the Bishop of Truro’s report, the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that the efforts made to tackle the problem of attacks on Christians around the world has not matched the scale of the injustice perpetrated. I welcome that frank acknowledgement. I hope that the Bishop of Truro’s report marks a turning point where that inadequacy begins to change. We cannot just stand by and let this continue to happen.
The Open Doors website quotes 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, verse 26:
“If one part suffers, every part suffers with it”.
We have a responsibility to act. As the Bishop’s report says, the vague language of general condemnation must be replaced by action to address the specific problem of Christian persecution. A key task is to spread that message to Governments around the world. The editorial in The Times that I quoted at the start of my speech said:
“We cannot be spectators at this carnage.”
This has been a powerful debate on a hard-hitting report that I hope will change the direction of UK foreign policy in a profound way.

Lyn Brown: Boko Haram has been persecuting and killing Christians for more than 10 years. In a decade, thousands have died. I am going to focus on the story of just one woman.
Saratu’s home was one of those targeted. She saved her family as her village burned, making sure they got away. They hid together in the forest, but she knew she would have to go back. They had nothing to eat and she could not let her children die of hunger. She was spotted, chased, captured and beaten. Saratu was taken to a holding camp with hundreds of other women and children; they were held like animals. She feared the worst. She had heard the stories of rape, torture and murder, and of forced conversion, forced marriage and slavery. But her spirit was not broken. She was determined to get back to her children and save the other women with her. Two nights later, she escaped with more than 20 women and children.
Twenty thousand Nigerian Christians have been killed, and many more have endured kidnapping, forced conversion and torture. The kidnappings have not stopped. Christians across the middle belt of Nigeria still live in fear and the  violence has spread to neighbouring Niger. Just last month, Boko Haram kidnapped a woman from the city of Diffa, in an area that has provided refuge for the tens of thousands fleeing the attacks in Nigeria. They used that woman to send a message of terror—a letter saying to all in Diffa: “Leave within three days or be killed”. Many Christian families have fled in fear, but others simply cannot afford to leave and remain at risk. It may become yet another story of religious cleansing and murder.
The Diffa region has already seen what Boko Haram will do: 14 people were killed and 37 kidnapped in two separate 2017 attacks. Soon afterwards, the daughter of the region’s Christian pastor was taken as well. The persecution caused by Boko Haram is extreme. Some 8,000 children have been used as soldiers, targeted because of poverty and vulnerability, and exploited, lied to and manipulated. Many are orphans, and some had been abandoned to the streets by parents who could simply no longer look after them. In 2018, according to UNICEF, 48 of those children were used as suicide bombers— 48 children died to murder others. In that year, they were mostly girls. In 2017, the number was 135. The campaign of religious violence has not stopped, and less than a month ago three children were used as a weapon in a communal hall; 30 were murdered and 40 injured. Religious differences have been exploited to create this violence. Christians—the minority in the north of Nigeria—have been made scapegoats. Hatred has been created and fuelled.
President Buhari has made clear commitments to improve security, including for Christian communities in Nigeria, but frankly such promises have been made before. I want to know what the Government are going to do to work proactively with Nigeria, Niger and others to make that basic promise of security a reality.

Steve Double: It is an honour to take part in this important debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I am sure none of us have been anything but moved by the accounts we have heard.
I pay tribute to the Bishop of Truro for his excellent report. The persecution of Christians has been raised many times in this House since I have been elected, but never have we had such a comprehensive and well put together report, which really presents a picture of what is taking place in the world. I draw attention to the fact that, in the report, the Bishop included a quote from William Wilberforce, from one of his first speeches in this House against the slave trade. He said:
“You may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know.”
That is what the report does to this House—never again can we say that we do not know what is going on in our world today. It is therefore down to us to decide what we do with the information with which we have been provided.
Like many other Members, I wish to pay tribute to the many organisations that work tirelessly to raise the issue of the persecution of Christians. They even put their own lives at risk to work for the protection of those who are persecuted for their faith. I have had the pleasure of working with Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and I thank them for the amazing work they do.
The persecution of Christians is nothing new. Right from the very beginning, the Christian Church faced persecution, but I am sure that if we spoke to those first early Christians and told them that, more than 2,000 years later, the persecution of Christians for their faith would get worse, they would have struggled to comprehend how that could possibly be the case. None the less, that is the situation in which we find ourselves. As other Members have highlighted, the vast majority of people—some 80% of them—who are persecuted for their faith around the world are Christians. The persecution of Christians can be seen as a bellwether of the broader persecution of other faiths. Often, how a country behaves towards its Christians is a test of how other religious minorities will also be treated, which is why it is important that the Foreign Office, through this report from the Bishop of Truro, has chosen to focus on the persecution of Christians around the world.
It is often difficult for those with no faith to understand exactly what it is like for someone to find that their right, or their freedom, to worship, to practise and to express their faith is taken away. It is as if their identity has been taken away. To take the right of freedom of faith away from anyone is the ultimate violation of human rights.
We must never take for granted the freedom that we have in this country. Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is no longer in her place, I have been horrified by some of the abuse that Members here have experienced over the past week or so simply because they followed their conscience and voted in a particular way in this House. We should all make it absolutely clear that there is no place for that in this country and that people should be free in this House to vote in the way that their conscience dictates. That is an ultimate freedom that we should defend and never lose sight of.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for joining me to present the case to the Committee. I thank, too, the Minister for Europe and the Americas and the Foreign Secretary for their commitment to this issue—the Foreign Secretary has been much committed to this issue—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro for his efforts in carrying out the review of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s work to support persecuted Christians.
In the past year, 100,000 Christians will have been murdered because of their faith and 200 million will have been persecuted because of their faith. Some 2 billion people live in what is referred to as an endangered neighbourhood. That is the magnitude of this issue and why it is so important to have it before us in the House today.

Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. As he praises the commitment of others across the House, may I just pay tribute to the work that he does in his role as chair of the all-party group for internationalfreedomof religion or belief. He represents  incredibly well our party, our constituents, and, I think, all those of faith who believe that we have more to do, so I thank him.

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend is most generous. I have been working to raise the issue of the persecution of Christians, people of other faiths and people with no faith.

Paul Girvan: I have a sister who is a missionary in Africa. Her team encounter persecution on a daily basis, and have faced particular difficulties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Some of this persecution has sometimes been called tribal violence. It is not tribal violence; it is tribes rising against Christians, and it has been covered up by the world media. We also need to highlight that issue.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) said that it is the job of Members of this House to raise awareness, and she is right. But it is also our job to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Emma Little Pengelly: May I pay tribute—I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me—to the absolutely sterling work done by organisations such as Open Doors? Although I have attended church throughout my entire life, before I came to this place I was completely unaware of the sheer scale of the persecution of Christians. This issue is incredibly important to all of us. We talk to each other, and most people in the Chamber have read the report and know the scale of the situation, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done out there. It is our duty not only to speak in this House, but to go out and speak to our constituents on our social media accounts and through the media to ensure that everybody is aware of the plight facing many millions of people right across the world—people of the Christian faith in particular, as that is the subject of today’s proceedings, but also people of other faiths. We should also make people aware of the incredible work that the APPG does in trying to raise awareness across all faiths.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for her very kind intervention.
There are some 80-plus churches in my constituency. I write to them and let them know what is going on, and this debate will go out to every one of those 80 churches of all faiths across my constituency next week when the girls in the office get the work done.
As the APPG noted in our published statement, all religious or belief communities throughout the world face violations of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, and protecting one group requires protecting all groups. I visited Pakistan last year, and it was poignant and emotional to see the position of Christians there with respect to education and qualifications, job opportunities, the right to worship and the right to convert. In fact, we are well aware of the issues across the whole middle east.
In Syria, 1.5 million Christians have left their country. There are only a quarter of a million Christians left in Iraq and fewer than 100,000 in Iran. In Colombia, Christian peasant farmers have been persecuted, tortured and murdered by Government forces and paramilitary  groups. There are similar situations in Libya and in Nigeria, which the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned, where Boko Haram has carried out murders to a large degree. The Easter massacre in Sri Lanka is all too real in our lives. In eastern Ukraine, where Russia has influence, Baptist pastors have gone missing and churches have been destroyed. And then there is North Korea, where people cannot even mention the word “Christian” without being put in prison right away. There are also unbelievable abuses in China, as has already been mentioned today.
FORB is a hugely important issue. Indeed, the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation published its analysis on the same day as the launch of the report. I would strongly encourage any future UK Government of any colour to take this issue very seriously. The Minister knows that I am fond of him and he always responds well to our questions, so I look forward to his response. I have a couple of questions for him today. Has he initiated any action under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 against FORB violators such as the generals in Burma? Have we ever needed reminding how much the Rohingya in Burma have been butchered, violated, murdered, raped, abused and burnt alive, or that their babies have been killed almost at birth? Those generals need to be made accountable. I look to the Minister to see what we can do in that regard. What discussions has he had with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that they can also be part of the changes that are needed? I commend the charities—Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors, Release International, the Barnabas Fund and Aid to the Church in Need—for all they have done.
I commend the Bishop of Truro for his efforts with this review. Will the Minister ask a Select Committee to assess the review to determine lessons learned and provide support and guidance for future reviewers? Recommendation 22 of the review states that in three years there should be a review to assess the Government’s progress in implementing the recommendations of the report. Will the Government also consider asking the Foreign Affairs Committee to carry that out?

Fiona Bruce: The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has an enormous heart and often speaks from it. I admire, respect and have affection for him.
I welcome the final report of the Bishop of Truro and thank him for it. I commend the depth of research in it. I want to speak rather technically about some of the recommendations, but before that—and more briefly than I would have liked—I want to affirm what colleagues have said. It is so important to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief; when it is encroached on, that so often also involves the violation of other human rights, including the right to life, the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the right to freedom of assembly or association, the right to freedom of expression and many more.
That recognition must be clearly visible in the strategy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Protecting the right of freedom of religion and belief is so important  because its violation is often the root cause of so many other human rights violations across the world, as we have heard today.

Jeremy Lefroy: I praise my hon. Friend for all the work she has done, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others in this House.
Most countries in the world have signed the universal declaration on human rights. That is there—it is a commitment that they have made. All who have signed it, including the United Kingdom, need to be held accountable. Every year, the United Nations needs to hold to account all the nations that have signed the declaration but are not living up to it. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Fiona Bruce: Absolutely. I commend the report’s recommendation that the UK engage better with international human rights mechanisms, but I do not think that the recommendation for a universal periodic review will help enough. A review conducted every three or four years is not enough to enable us to address some of the freedom of religious belief-related issues.
As my hon. Friend said, we need a solid review plan for a rolling oversight of the FCO’s obligations under the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights—international standards—so that we can monitor the situation of the affected communities, tailor the FCO’s response and oversee implementation. For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical about the suggested introduction of a diplomatic code. actually, we have the international standards; we should be judged against those.
I commend the recommendation for the UK to champion the call for other countries each to have a special envoy position for freedom of religious belief—something that I emphasised in my communications with the independent review. I stress that we need to strengthen the mandate of our own Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religious belief, to ensure that he has all the resources and powers that he needs to be effective. I am not sure that that is the case at present. I see the good work that Lord Ahmad is doing, but time and again I see how stretched he is. I wonder whether the role should be distinct from that of a Foreign Office Minister, so that action on many of the review’s recommendations can be held to account independently.

Stephen Kerr: My hon. Friend is right to echo the call in the report for the United Kingdom to become a champion of freedom of religion or belief, but does she share my concern about the deterioration of tolerance towards Christians in this country? I point to the example of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who has been subject to the most intolerable feedback in relation to her vote of conscience last week.

Fiona Bruce: I agree—we must call out criticism of those in this place and elsewhere who simply want the freedom to express their biblically-based beliefs. My hon. Friend is right. Along with many others in this place, I have been the subject of some really unpleasant attacks during the past week, particularly on social media, simply for speaking out in this place and voting on biblically-based beliefs on abortion and marriage.
I turn to the issue of genocide. I welcome the recommendation in the report that the Government should introduce
“mechanisms…to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide through activities such as setting up early warning mechanisms to identify countries at risk of atrocities, diplomacy to help de-escalate tensions and resolve disputes”.
I have spoken about this issue many times in this Chamber, raised questions about it and put forward the Genocide Determination (No. 2) Bill, which would help to deal with it. I commend the Bishop of Truro for highlighting the issue.
It is important to point out that the FCO does not have appropriate mechanisms to consider mass atrocities and determine whether they amount to genocide. When asked about genocide, the Government’s usual response is that such a determination is not for politicians to make, but for the international judicial systems. That needs to be reviewed. The FCO needs to review its long-standing policy of outsourcing the determination of genocide to the international judicial systems, which often do not exist. We need to introduce an FCO-based team focused on genocide and religious persecution to consider situations, identify red flags and inform the FCO response. We also need to ensure that the FCO works closely with other Departments, such as the Home Office and the Department for International Development, to ensure that we are applying the principles in this report internationally and at home.
Finally, I welcome the recommendation about improved religious literacy training. The FCO has a FoRB toolkit, but as the Bishop of Truro has said, barely anyone applies it in their work or takes notice of it. We need to improve that.

Ross Thomson: I congratulate the Members who helped secure today’s debate on this very important matter. The persecution of Christians around the globe is felt by many both within and outwith the Church, in my constituency and further afield. Leaving Christians overseas vulnerable to persecution would be a gross abdication of the global responsibilities that this country has worked ceaselessly to uphold over many years.
The very birthplace of Christianity is under threat. Christians in countries across the middle east find themselves driven from their homes and imprisoned, tortured or killed on the basis of the faith that they hold or the texts that they follow. Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and the continuing spectre of Boko Haram in central Africa, present a real existential challenge for the free practice of religion in those regions. The presence of Christianity in more and more parts of the world faces nothing short of complete extinction, while Governments fail to provide a bulwark against the tide of attacks.
Christians in communities across the world under oppressive Governments, or who are the target of militant groups, take little comfort from warm words. For a child left parentless after her family was executed for attending church, condemnation provides no salve. For a pastor standing in the ruins of his church, statements of support ring hollow. We can do more, and we must do more, to help bring the persecution of Christians to an end.
I welcome the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, which show the clear steps that this Government can take. I am encouraged by the words of many colleagues, which demonstrate the constructive spirit in which we all are willing to work. The challenge that faces all of us in ending discrimination and violence against Christians is monumental, but this report leaves me optimistic about the future of religious freedoms. This review makes concise, achievable recommendations that draw on the talents of our unparalleled diplomatic network. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has immeasurable experience in helping some of the world’s most vulnerable people when they need it most. Now is the time to use that experience and influence to protect Christians, who face the most unimaginable treatment for following their faith. I congratulate the Government on their unequivocal support for defending the rights of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, because that demonstrated the impact and reach that our country can have when we lead international responses to protect those suffering from religious persecution.
The systematic denial of freedom of religious belief is becoming entrenched by extreme nationalism and militant extremism in all corners of the world. We cannot afford to hesitate. The Government have shown that they are able and willing to lead an international response to tackle these injustices. The responsibility now rests with the Government to agree a strong collective response that has freedom and tolerance at its heart.

Stephen Kerr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on his speech. It is deeply humbling for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). When I think of those two Members, I think of the line from Paul’s epistle to the Romans, chapter 1, verse 16:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ”.
The speech delivered by the hon. Member for Strangford reminded me of the famous saying of St Francis of Assisi:
“Preach the gospel at all times and, if necessary, use words.”
The emotion behind what he said was very powerful.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for commissioning the report—it is a measure of that particular Member of this House that he felt the need to commission it in the first place. I also thank the Bishop of Truro for the work that he has done to highlight the scale of Christian persecution around the world. It is an excellent report, and I hope that its conclusions and recommendations will be studied carefully, and accepted and actioned. I cannot truly convey the emotions I felt when reading the report, because the scale of Christian persecution that it describes is truly shocking and horrific. Nobody should be persecuted because of how or who they worship. It is a fundamental part of the spiritual DNA of many Members of this House that everybody should have the basic human right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
I fully support the Bishop’s recommendation that freedom of religion or belief should become the underpinning of the operation of the Foreign and  Commonwealth Office. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, I endorse the need for a diplomatic code. I think that some of our diplomats need to have a clear direction on the appropriate response to the persecution of Christians, because I feel ashamed that so many Christians have been persecuted around the world and we have done so little to stop it, or even to speak out about it. It is right that we have spoken out to condemn violence against other minority groups, but it is wrong that at times we have been too restrained—or indeed silent—in condemning the persecution of Christians.
I also agree with the Bishop that calling out the persecution of Christians is neither imperialistic nor a case of white privilege. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) noted, the Bishop said that it is not about special pleading for Christians, but about making up for a significant deficit, because Christian persecution accounts for 80% of all religious persecution around the world.
Our county must act. We have a special responsibility—a moral responsibility—because of our privileged status in the world, and with our Head of State being the head of a Christian Church, to speak out and protect Christians around the world. Renewing a focus on Christian persecution, as the Bishop said, is actually a way of expressing our concern for all minorities who find themselves under pressure. Ignoring Christian persecution might well mean ignoring other forms of repression.
May I make a plea to the Minister that we will use our soft power to exercise as much influence as possible in speaking up for persecuted Christians? It is high time we escalated the role of the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief. We need to follow the American example by having a dedicated ambassador at large for international freedom of religion or belief, with a formal structure of support, engaging with faith leaders at home and abroad and articulating recommendations for cross-Government action on this.

David Linden: As others have done, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who opened today’s debate. He eloquently set the scene for what has been an excellent debate that, as some of us predicted, has been squeezed due to time. Alongside the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), I appeared before the Backbench Business Committee in support of the application for the debate. Both Members have been serious champions for the persecuted Church in this House. I know I speak on behalf of everyone when I thank them for their pursuance of this issue.
I have the privilege of winding up today’s debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, which endorses the report and the recommendations made by the Bishop of Truro. We extend our grateful thanks to Philip and his team for doing so much work in such a short period of time. It was great that the Foreign Secretary committed to the review being undertaken. The relatively tight timescale for the report to be conducted and produced has raised some eyebrows, but we are where we are. It is important that the next Foreign Secretary is as committed to this issue as the current office holder.
Over the course of the afternoon we have had no fewer than 15 contributions from the Back Benches, from the hon. Members for Croydon South, for Clwyd  South (Susan Elan Jones), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), the hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Stroud (Dr Drew), the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and the hon. Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Strangford, for Congleton, for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
For my own part, one of the most powerful images I have ever seen was from Egypt’s Tahrir Square in 2011. That scene, of Christians forming a human shield around Muslims who were on their hands and knees praying, is one that will never leave me. For me, that kind of solidarity and fellowship is the very essence of freedom of religion and belief. However, freedom of religion and belief is not just some romantic idea. It is enshrined in the UN universal declaration of human rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The review is to be warmly welcomed, and it is especially welcome that it has a very specific focus on the persecution of Christians. Whether it is a subconscious post-colonial guilt or not, there is sometimes a feeling that the persecution of Christians is often ignored or given less attention. That is alarming when we consider the sheer scale of the persecution of those of us who follow Jesus Christ. We know that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the whole world. Indeed, in 2016, the Pew Research Centre found that Christians were singled out and persecuted in 144 countries across the world. That was up from 125 the previous year. We know from the excellent work done by organisations such as Open Doors that a quarter of a billion Christians in the top 50 countries for persecution still suffer intolerable levels of persecution and risk simply for following Jesus Christ.
Others have already done justice to the report by going through its recommendations, and the Foreign Office should absolutely give them serious consideration. I want to focus on where we go now and how the British Government interact with other countries in the years to come. At the moment, I am particularly concerned about persecution of Christians in Latin America and southern Asia.
Alarmingly, we saw India shoot up the world watchlist this year, entering the top 10 countries for persecuting Christians. That is particularly worrying, because the hostility towards Christians has grown enormously in just five years or so. Put simply, the persecution in India can be attributed directly to Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu nationalist movement. India is the world’s largest democracy, yet we are still hearing of prayer meetings being disrupted by Modi’s thugs and Christians being beaten simply for gathering to study God’s word and to pray.
Moving from India over to Pakistan, we are reminded of those paying the price twice: first, for being female; and, secondly, for having the temerity to have a different faith. In Pakistan, Christian women are particularly  vulnerable to abduction, rape and forced marriage. It is estimated that 700 girls are vulnerable to that every single year.
I want to turn now to Latin America, which is in the Minister’s brief and which he is familiar with. There are a number of factors in play in Latin America, and we know that the main driver of persecution is a depressing cocktail of cartels, state authorities and rival human rights claims by indigenous groups. In Mexico, for example, murder is a regular occurrence, with the Roman Catholic Multimedia Centre reporting the murder of 45 priests and one cardinal between 1990 and 2017. Even today, Mexico is still considered one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a Catholic priest.
Earlier in the year, I wrote to the Minister about the situation in Chile and he, in his usual courteous but robust style, disputed that it was a place of hostility for Christians. However, in recent years, we have seen a co-ordinated campaign of arson attacks on churches, both Catholic and Protestant, so I would be grateful if, in summing up, he could specifically refer to Chile and the latest situation there.
The reason I mention some of these countries and not the typical ones, such as Iraq and North Korea, is that they are ones with which we seek to have a good relationship in the context of global Britain; indeed, the Government actively want to do post-Brexit trade deals with them. I guess my main ask today is that human rights and freedom of religion and belief are not overlooked in some mad scramble to do a post-Brexit trade deal. As with any negotiation, there are trade-offs, but turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christians cannot be one of them.
That brings me rather nicely to the final thing I want to quote, which is the Bishop of Truro’s last words in the report:
“Perhaps the most dystopian aspect of George Orwell’s 1984 is the existence of the ‘Thought Police’ and the possibility of prosecution for ‘thought crime’. The freedom to think for oneself and to choose to believe what one chooses to believe, without fear of coercion, is the most fundamental human right, and is indeed the one on which so many others depend: because if one is not free to think or believe how can one order one’s life in any other way one chooses? And yet everywhere in our world today we see this right questioned, compromised and threatened. It is a grave threat which must be resisted—both because it is an evil in itself, and because it threatens so much else. It is on the basis of that conviction that these recommendations have been formulated. And those who find these recommendations unpalatable should simply ask themselves this question: what exactly would the consequences of inaction be? And how grave does this situation have to become before we act?”

Liz McInnes: I thank the hon. Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his summing-up. The hon. Member for Strangford, in particular, has done some excellent work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to highlight the persecution of Christians and, indeed, of those of other faiths and none. I commend him for his passion for the subject. Yes, sometimes it is emotional, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
We have heard 15 excellent speeches from hon. Members, and the representation here has been impressively cross-party and multi-faith. Genuine action on the persecution of Christians is long overdue; many people have been trying to draw the world’s attention to the deeply worrying scale of Christian persecution for many, many years. Like other Members, I was shocked to hear that 80% of religious persecution globally is against Christians. Clearly, there is a serious problem here that needs urgent action from all Governments.
The report rightly highlights that persecution for one’s religion or belief is not limited to Christians or indeed to any one religious or non-religious group. The unfortunate reality is that countries that do not respect religious freedom, or indeed the right to no belief, invariably do not respect other basic human rights. The persecution of Christians often goes hand in hand with the persecution of other religious groups and minorities. For example, we might look at India, where the rise of Hindu nationalism affects millions of Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, or at Pakistan, which is about 95% Muslim and 2% Christian, and has some of the harshest blasphemy laws in the world, including a mandatory death penalty for insulting the Prophet Mohammed.
The case of Asia Bibi was particularly concerning. While we are all relieved that Asia and her family have now settled in Canada, it was a real shame that our Government could not confirm at the time that they would offer her asylum in the UK. I had numerous conversations on the subject with the then Minister for Asia and the Pacific, and each time he urged caution in making the case too public. Now that the current Minister is in a position to comment on Asia’s case without jeopardising her move, can he clarify whether it is correct that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office vetoed the suggestion that she be allowed to move to the UK?
I very much welcome the Government’s initiatives to put the persecution of Christians centre stage globally. However, human rights groups and others are concerned about whether they will maintain the momentum. In July 2018, the Prime Minister took the very welcome step of appointing Lord Ahmad as her special envoy on freedom of religion or belief. One way to alleviate the concerns of human rights groups would be to make the role of the special envoy permanent, providing appropriate resources and an ability to work across Departments, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm today that the Government will do that.
The Bishop of Truro said in his review that we must be prepared to consider imposing sanctions on perpetrators of serious human rights abuses against religious minorities, including Christians. Such a measure to hold nations to account over their human rights violations could be a very significant step, and would be a real statement of intent, showing that the Government were committed to protecting religious minorities. Another potential measure is to include human rights clauses in future trade agreements. EU trade policy is increasingly incorporating human rights considerations. Can the Minister give an assurance that the significant work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the persecution of Christians can be mainstreamed through new trade agreements?
The Bishop of Truro also recommended that the Government seek a Security Council resolution urging all Governments in the middle east and north Africa to protect Christians, and other persecuted minorities, and allow UN observers to monitor the necessary security measures. That too would be a welcome step, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it, but I suggest that we need to go further. Rather than monitoring situations, we need to actively pursue progress on the persecution of Christians. That could start with countries with which we have good relationships, such as Nigeria. The report notes the internecine violence between Muslim herdsmen and Christian farmers across Nigeria’s middle belt. If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were to work with the Nigerian Government to prioritise engagement on freedom of religion and belief, investing the necessary resources, a real difference could be made over time.
It is true that the conflict in Nigeria is not simply religious, but is also driven by climate change and a rapidly growing population. It is clear that more needs to be done to promote reconciliation between religious communities. I hope that the Minister will clarify how the UK will work with other Governments to support freedom of religion and belief. Numerous options are available to the Government to show that they are committed to protecting religious minorities, and many of them are contained in the Bishop of Truro’s review. I am sure the whole House looks forward to hearing from the Minister which recommendations the Government will be implementing, and what specific action they will be taking in the light of this review.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and to the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing the debate. The Minister for the Middle East, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), would have liked very much to be here to respond to the debate, but he is currently engaged in a parallel debate, so the honour falls to me.
I am grateful for the contributions of all Members. This really has been a most dignified and passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford. I have only a day or two left as a Minister—by choice; or perhaps, anyway—and I have to say that in my three years as a Foreign Office Minister, I have responded to many, many Westminster Hall debates, and without exception, when any topic involving human rights, religion, persecution of international justice is being discussed, the hon. Gentleman has been unfailingly present. I shall miss him, if not all Westminster Hall debates.

Chris Bryant: You can still turn up.

Alan Duncan: Thank you for the offer. There are not many saints in this House, but the hon. Gentleman is about as close as anyone gets to being one.
On Monday 8 July the Foreign Secretary welcomed the publication of the Bishop of Truro’s independent review of the persecution of Christians worldwide, and I would like now to set out in more detail the response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The world is an increasingly challenging place for people of faith, and in some parts of the world for those of no faith. In the past two years, appalling atrocities, as we have heard today, have been committed against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the horrific shootings in two Christchurch mosques shocked us all, but there are so many other stories of suffering that gain far less news coverage, and the statistics tell us, as we have heard again today, that Christians suffer more persecution than any other religious group in the world, yet we hear far less about this than one would expect. We are too reticent about discussing Christian persecution, and we must overcome this mindset; the evidence justifies a much louder voice.
As the Bishop of Truro states in the introduction to his review, the majority of Christians are found in the global south and among the global poor, and the review takes case studies from China, India, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, where persecution stems from state oppression, terrorism and ethnic or nationalist conflict. As Christianity is perhaps the most truly global of religions, the persecution of Christians often indicates wider violations of the rights of all minority groups, and the report notes  the large body of evidence for this. In some places the persecution of Christians is closely linked with poverty and social exclusion, and elsewhere it is compounded by discrimination against women, so increasing the attention given to Christian persecution does not dull but sharpen our focus on human rights for all.

John Hayes: The Foreign Office has taken the lead on this, but the Minister will know that a number of hon. Members have argued that there needs to be a cross-Government approach for the very reason he has just set out: that this touches on so many areas. May we have a strategy across the whole of Government to address this alarming persecution?

Alan Duncan: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and in fact he is making my point for me: this is not just a Foreign Office thing. Indeed, it is not just an envoy thing; it is an everything thing, which means that all Departments, all of Government, and all Government policies must bear this in mind. And in doing so we should not be timid; we should be bold and ensure that the UK’s response to Christian persecution is in proportion to the problem, and that, as the report suggests, now demands serious effort.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Minister also agree that if we are to call this out internationally, we must also call out criticism of those in this country who feel inhibited perhaps and unable to speak out on issues as a result of their religious views? That is wrong.

Alan Duncan: We cannot have one set of standards for abroad and a different set of standards for our own domestic life; they all have to be consistent, and in that sense my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Freedom of religion or belief is already a fundamental part of Foreign Office work, in accordance with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. We have a team here in London dedicated to this agenda, and our overseas network promotes and supports freedom of religion on a daily basis. Over the past year we have  spoken out about the rights of the Baha’i in Yemen, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, the Rohingya in Myanmar and religious minorities in the middle east.
However, belief is a sensitive issue where more can sometimes be achieved through quiet persuasion and discreet negotiation. Sensitive cases often depend on strong diplomatic relations. With this in mind, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been tackling religious persecution on three levels: first, we work with the United Nations and other global organisations to create international consensus to support freedom of religion or belief; secondly, at country level Ministers and officials raise individual cases with their hosts and lobby on behalf of the United Kingdom against practices and laws that discriminate on the basis of religion or belief; and thirdly, the Government, through the FCO, fund and support projects that promote respect for all people of faith and those of no faith.
The UK argues strongly for civilian and refugee protection, for humanitarian access and for the improvement of the effectiveness and funding of the international response across the world. We support efforts to ensure that Christians can return to their homes in areas of Iraq liberated from Daesh, and we are leading global efforts to bring Daesh to justice for their crimes. Two years ago, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted the UK-drafted Daesh accountability resolution 2379, which called for the establishment of an investigative team to collect evidence of Daesh’s crimes. Last year, the Prime Minister appointed my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon as the first special envoy on freedom of religion or belief. Lord Ahmad has worked tirelessly on this issue to offer our support to those who suffer. Good work is being done, but we must of course reflect on whether there is more we can do to protect Christians who are persecuted on the basis of their religion.
The report suggests that there is more to be done, and I am pleased to announce—in answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)—that the Government have decided to accept every recommendation in full. The following list of commitments is not exhaustive, but I hope that it illustrates the scale of our ambition. We will put freedom of religion or belief at the heart of FCO culture, policy and operations. We will publicly articulate our goals, and give guidance to our diplomats on how to reflect these values. We already engage on freedom of religion or belief in a range of international forums, but we will strengthen our approach with an advocacy strategy. We will carefully examine whether adopting the label “Christophobia” would better inform FCO policies to address the problem.
We will strengthen our data on freedom of religion or belief, and we already have the Magna Carta project that is investigating ways to improve the data. We will also work with the Department for International Development’s freedom of religion or belief programme to look at how better data can inform the development of international policy. We will respond immediately to any atrocity, including genocide, and we will continue our work to impose sanctions on the perpetrators of religious or faith-based persecution.
We will encourage arm’s length bodies and partners such as the British Council to develop appropriate policies on freedom of religion or belief. To promote religious literacy, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), all  Foreign Office staff will undergo mandatory training where this is relevant to their job. We will create a clear reporting framework to formalise how we engage with minority and religious leaders on the ground, and we will use the recommendations to tailor responses to violations. We will ensure that human rights reporting mentions faith-based persecution wherever relevant.
To improve co-ordination, we will investigate whether new Whitehall structures could strengthen cross-Government thinking. We will initiate regular themed discussions with civil society representatives, and convene Ministers across Government to give a consistent international approach. At the United Nations, we will explore how best to deliver a new Security Council resolution urging all Governments in the middle east and north Africa to protect Christians, and to allow UN observers to monitor the necessary security measures. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will follow up on the recommendation that this report should also inform the work of other public authorities through a future full Cabinet meeting. Finally, we recognise the importance of measuring the impact of our work, so a review will be commissioned after a suitable length of time.
We warmly recommend this review for helping to give the worldwide persecution of Christians the attention that it demands. The review provides us with new evidence and raises concerns to which we must respond. I hope that Members here today will agree that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is demonstrating its firm commitment to addressing the recommendations of the review and to improving freedom of religious expression around the world, and I am more than happy that my final words in this House as a Minister should be in support of such a worthy cause.

Chris Philp: This afternoon’s debate has been a really excellent one. I would like to pay tribute to all the Members who have contributed to it, but in particular  to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his emotional and powerful contribution earlier. I strongly suspect that the final words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) in the Chamber will not be those he has just spoken. I look forward to hearing his words for many years to come.
I strongly welcome the response we have just heard. It is fantastic news that the Government are accepting all the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report, and I am delighted we have heard that announced in the House this afternoon. It is very important that all of us in this House and in the Government take responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights around the world. Just because atrocities are happening across the oceans or across the seas does not make them any less serious. We should never pass by on the other side.
I hope this afternoon’s debate will provide the Government with the motivation to redouble their efforts—not just in adopting the recommendations in the report, but in going further and looking at the ways we can use aid, trade and other tools in the Government’s toolbox to protect the rights of religious minorities, particularly Christians, around the world, where persecution occurs. Today’s debate has been an excellent one, and I hope action results. Once again, I thank everybody for participating in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores the persecution of Christians overseas; supports freedom of religion or belief in all countries throughout the world; welcomes the work undertaken by the Bishop of Truro in this area; and calls on the Government to do more with the diplomatic and other tools at its disposal to prevail on the governments of countries in which persecution of Christians is tolerated or encouraged to end that persecution and to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief.

NON-INVASIVE PRECISION CANCER THERAPIES

Grahame Morris: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the vital role that radiotherapy plays in cancer treatment across the UK with an estimated one in four people needing that treatment at some stage of their life; notes that there is a significant body of expert opinion that up to 24,000 people may be missing out on the radiotherapy they need, resulting in many hundreds of unnecessary or premature deaths; further notes that the UK spend on radiotherapy as a percentage of the overall cancer budget is approximately five per cent which compares badly with most other advanced economies where the percentage varies from nine per cent to 11 per cent; notes that the current commissioning system for radiotherapy is sub-optimal as exemplified by a tariff regime which discourages NHS Trusts from implementing advanced modern effective radiotherapy; calls on the Government to provide an immediate up-front £250 million investment in the service, an ongoing extra £100 million per annum investment in personnel and skills and IT, and to introduce a sustainably, centrally and fully funded rolling programme for Linac machine replacements; and further calls on the Government to appoint a single person to oversee the commissioning and implementation of radiotherapy services.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for granting this debate, and all the Members on both sides of the House who supported the application. I must declare an interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on radiotherapy, and also as a cancer survivor—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. Thanks to early diagnosis, I was successfully treated with both chemotherapy and, crucially, precision radiotherapy.
I want to point out to the Minister that there is currently a crisis—there is no other word for it—in the management and funding of radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the charity Action Radiotherapy estimates that as many as 20,000 people across the UK may be missing out on the radiotherapy they need. Many of these patients will die prematurely or unnecessarily as a result of this shortfall. Given that one in four people receives some form of radiotherapy during their lives, and that almost half of us in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lifetimes, I hope the Government will realise just how important it is that we invest in modern and, importantly, accessible cancer diagnosis—and not just in diagnosis, but in cancer treatments.

Jeff Smith: I am very proud to have the Christie Hospital in my constituency of Manchester, Withington. It has a fantastic proton beam therapy unit, which is going to be the future of cancer treatment. However, when I speak to the staff at the Christie, their biggest worry is the workforce. Does he agree with me that the challenge is not just funding for treatment, but actually investing in our cancer workforce as well?

Grahame Morris: Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Indeed, that is one of the four basic requirements, as the all-party group, the charity Radiotherapy4Life and Action Radiotherapy have pointed out. That is clearly demonstrated in the “Manifesto for Radiotherapy”, which I commend to the Minister and to all hon. Members.
I appreciate that the Minister will want to refer to chapter 3 of “The NHS Long Term Plan”, particularly paragraph 3.62 on more precise treatments using advanced radiotherapy techniques. In anticipation of that, I would like to say, on investment, that the Government have promised to complete the £130 million investment in radiotherapy machines and, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, to commission the proton beam machines at University College Hospital in London and the Christie Hospital in Manchester. However, I respectfully point out to the Minister that that is not a new announcement of additional resources, but the recycling of previous announcements. The money has already been spent or committed, so it is not part of the comprehensive 10-year plan for radiotherapy that we advocated for in the “Manifesto for Radiotherapy”.
The £250 million for proton beam facilities, while welcome, will only treat 1,500 patients a year. I accept that many of them will be children with brain cancers, but the number represents only 1% of patients needing radiotherapy. As indicated in the manifesto, we recommend that the same sum that was spent on proton beam facilities—a relatively modest sum given the size of the budget as a whole—is all that is needed to renew radiotherapy centres and to ensure that all patients, not just those who live in London or near to major conurbations, can receive treatment within the recommended 45-minute travel time. I know that other hon. Members will say a little more about that.
We are also asking for an additional £100 million a year, increasing the cancer funding for radiotherapy from the current 5% a year to 6.5% a year, to ensure sufficient funding for workforce planning, including ensuring that there is suitable training, and ensuring that there is an effective IT network, equipment upgrades and a rolling programme to ensure that all radiotherapy machines across the UK are up to date. According to analysis of freedom of information requests made by Action Radiotherapy, more than 40% of NHS trusts in England—all bar six responded to the requests—that provide radiotherapy have machines that are past their recommended lifespan, leading to less efficient and effective care.
The current system of commissioning for radiotherapy often incentivises trusts not to use their most modern precision radiotherapy machines to their full capability. That means that some patients are treated more often and less effectively, even though there are modern stereotactic ablative radiotherapy machines that could treat them more effectively. Precision radiotherapy is needed to cure 40% of cancers, and all that we want is to ensure that all patients can get to a radiotherapy machine and that the professionals are allowed to switch on the machines and provide the appropriate treatment. However, chronic underfunding and the complications of radiotherapy commissioning and delivery are preventing that from happening.
Radiotherapy receives only 5% of the cancer treatment budget. At £383 million a year, that represents 0.025% of the total NHS budget, and I want to compare that with the cost of just two cancer drugs. The NHS budget for Herceptin—an effective drug that is used to treat about 15% to 20% of breast cancer patients—is  £160 million. A recent UK trial showed that only six months, not 12 months, of adjuvant Herceptin may be needed for adjacent therapy, which is when the drug is  used in combination with radiotherapy. In financial terms, the NHS could therefore save up to £80 million a year, offsetting much of the additional radiotherapy costs.
It is time to put radiotherapy back at the top of the NHS agenda, and we need someone to advocate for that. We are urging the Department to appoint a radiotherapy tsar who will ensure that the NHS has a world-class radiotherapy service. Many other MPs want to speak in the debate, so I will keep my remarks short. I am pleased that the Government have accepted that advanced precision radiotherapy is more effective and has fewer side-effects.
In summary, I want to see a modest increase in the budget for advanced radiotherapy, rising from 5% to 6.5% of the cancer budget. That would enable large numbers of cancer patients to live longer and more fulfilling lives and would achieve better outcomes and more positive economic benefits. I am keen to ensure that Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate. There are many issues that we need to highlight, including in relation to commissioning, workforce planning and IT networks, so I will leave it at that to allow others to participate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I will try to manage without a formal time limit. If everybody takes around five minutes, everybody will have the opportunity to speak.

Gillian Keegan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Half of everyone in the UK will develop cancer at some stage in their lives and a quarter of us will receive radiotherapy treatment. Radiotherapy is highly effective, especially when compared with other therapies, given that survival rates improve by 16% compared with just 2% with other therapies such as chemotherapy. That is important because the UK has the second worst survival rates for lung cancer in Europe and we lag behind the European average in nine out of 10 cancers. We know that our population is ageing and that, more and more, our lifestyle choices are detrimental to our health. This means that over the next six years, cancer rates are expected to increase by a quarter, so ensuring that we get cancer treatment right is of fundamental importance.
The Government are making progress in this area. Since 2010, rates of cancer survival have increased year on year. It is thought that 7,000 people are alive today who would otherwise not have been. The NHS long-term plan has set out a way to ensure that future radiotherapy treatment will be faster, smarter and more effective. Although it is a welcome strategy, we in the all-party group on radiotherapy have been looking into the detail and have highlighted some pressing issues, which we look forward to publishing in due course.
As has been mentioned, there are serious workforce shortages; for example, radiotherapy clinical scientists have a current vacancy rate of 8%. We need to take swift action to address that, and specifically, to support the  education and training programmes that feed the pipeline of talent. There are only 10 therapeutic radiography degree programmes in England and that will soon reduce to nine, as one very close to me in Portsmouth is due to close soon.
Since 2016, entry-level training for this industry has fallen by 23% since the loss of the bursary; last year, only 240 students undertook this training. I therefore hope that the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Education will review the impact of terminating the bursary programme and consider how to attract students to this profession. The Society of Radiographers recently developed an apprenticeship standard at degree level to provide another entry point to the profession. I believe that that is exactly the right approach, whereby the next generation of industry professionals can learn and earn on the job. Sadly, however, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education offered a funding band of around £19,000 for the programme’s delivery, but given the high-tech and expensive infrastructure needed to support it, the level of funding was insufficient. I urge the Institute of Apprenticeships to carry out a review of the scheme and ensure that we have the right funding requirements.
During evidence sessions for the all-party group on radiotherapy, the current tariff system came up again and again, including the fact that the tariff is paid per fraction. Clearly, if we have new technology that will reduce the number of fractions, there may be a perverse incentive that would discourage the use of it. Earlier this year, the all-party group visited Elekta in West Sussex, which is pioneering the future of advanced radiotherapy technology, including the MRI LINAC—linear accelerator—machines. Ironically, West Sussex does not have a single LINAC machine—neither the MRI version nor even the standard version—so many of my constituents are travelling as far as London and Brighton for their treatment. Time and again, I have heard from them, and from charities including CancerWise, which is based in Chichester, just how gruelling these daily journeys are. Many adjacent counties have this capability, and I started this journey to make the case for having that capability for my constituents.
It is worth highlighting that £130 million was invested in 2016-17, and that upgraded and replaced machines right across England’s cancer centres. It was the largest investment for 15 years, so we thank the Department of Health and Social Care for it; it was very welcome. However, we are concerned that in the long term, the equipment may not be maintained unless there is a rolling fund. The way we budget for this seems stochastic. We know that the equipment has a life span. As it is all new, perhaps we can now plan for when it is old, and ensure that there is a rolling budget in place. We have mentioned IT. It is vital that we have the latest network, to ensure that all the constituent parts are interconnected.
Radiotherapy is the most incredible resource, and is involved in 40% of cancer cures. It is a cost-effective treatment, taking up just 5% of the cancer budget while treating 50% of cancer patients, but it needs a bigger voice, and I am grateful to my colleagues on the APPG for securing this debate and allowing us to give it that voice.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the NHS staff across our country who deliver this phenomenal service. The changes that we are discussing could save  many more lives. Britain has always embraced innovative technology, so I have no doubt that advanced radiotherapy and integrated IT networks will be the standard in the future; the question for all those suffering from cancer is merely when.

Tim Farron: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who are vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, of which I am honoured to be the chair.
Many of us know too well the pain, hardship and heartbreak that cancer causes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, it is widely accepted that half of us will get cancer in our lifetime. While I am on my feet, there will be people getting their diagnosis and families coming to terms with it, and lives turned upside down. Most of us have been affected by cancer in some way; cancer took my mum, far too young. But increasingly cancer is a condition to be overcome, not a death sentence. Advances in medical science mean that there are often a host of possible treatments when the diagnosis comes.
Perhaps the form of treatment of which we hear the least is radiotherapy. It is widely accepted that 50% of those who suffer from cancer will require radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. However, in its recent radiotherapy specification, NHS England reduced the figure for cancer patients needing radiotherapy to 40%. It reached that figure on an interpretation of the Malthus model; if only 40% of cancer patients need radiotherapy, then the current level of investment will be just about adequate, as everyone who could benefit from radiotherapy would receive it, so we might as well conclude this debate and go home—only that figure is wrong, as NHS England has had to admit.
The APPG on radiotherapy recently held a number of evidence sessions, in part to get to the bottom of this inconsistency. We heard from a wide range of experts, including one of the authors of the Malthus model, who explicitly stated that NHS England’s interpretation of the model underestimates the number of patients requiring treatment, because it takes into account only those patients whose initial treatment is radiotherapy, not those who need it after the initial point. When pressed, NHS England accepted that, acknowledging that the 40% estimate was not accurate and fell shy of the true figure. This matters, because the real figure is roughly 50%, which means that NHS England is not commissioning sufficient radiotherapy treatment to meet the needs of cancer patients. The Government must plan on the basis of true demand, not of a figure discredited by the experts and now disowned by NHS England. The Royal College of Radiologists has confirmed that this combination of factors means that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, 20,000 people in Britain are not receiving the radiotherapy that they need.
The major issue in my patch is access. Those needing radiotherapy across our communities in south Cumbria have to travel to the Rosemere unit in Preston. That unit is excellent. The staff are wonderful and the kit is brilliant. There is only one thing wrong with Rosemere: it is far too far away. The National Radiotherapy Advisory  Group has said that it is bad practice for people normally to have to travel more than 45 minutes to receive radiotherapy treatment. I drove Kate from Kendal to her treatment in Preston the other week; it was a three-hour round trip. She had been doing that every day for six weeks. For those living in Garsdale, Langdale or Coniston, those trips could be five or six hours, or far longer on public transport, every day for weeks. Those are ludicrous distances to travel to receive vital treatment, and that is why we want a satellite of the Rosemere unit to be based at Westmorland General Hospital.
I spoke to one lady over 80 years of age who was recommended a course of radiotherapy. She decided to forgo that treatment because of the distance she would have to travel. She did not have the option of a shorter journey, so she has instead taken the option of a shorter life. And she is not alone.
A group of leading UK professionals at the British Institute of Radiology met to discuss their experience of setting up satellite centres. They calculated an average 20% uplift on top of the projected figures for those using the service, while the centres of which they were satellites saw no decline in numbers. That means that in areas such as mine, where access to radiotherapy is poor, 20% of people who should be getting radiotherapy are not getting it, but if a satellite centre was built, they would get that treatment. This is not about convenience; it is about saving lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington has already raised the problems with commissioning. I will simply say that 100% of radiotherapy centres in the UK are equipped with SABR—stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy—technology. That is the best technology, giving the most focused and concentrated treatment that is most effective at killing cancerous tissue and causing the least damage to surrounding healthy tissue. That means fewer treatments, fewer side-effects and better results. The scandal, however, is that only 25 of those 52 centres are commissioned to use it.
Is it any wonder that cancer survival rates in this country are among the worst in Europe? We have the second lowest survival rate for lung cancers and below average survival rates for nine of the 10 main cancers. Don’t hear me wrong—I know that radiotherapy is not the only solution. Surgery is vital, as are drugs and chemotherapy. We are very proud of the battle we won to deliver chemotherapy to Kendal—countless people have benefited from that—but when chemo improves survival by 2% whereas radiotherapy improves survival by 16%, we need to think carefully about the disparity in investment.
The simple fact is that radiotherapy lacks the financial backing to be heard. Drugs companies lobby passionately and legitimately for the treatments they provide. Radiotherapy has no such lobby. The all-party group has been struck by the realisation that we are the entire UK radiotherapy lobby, along with those people who work in the industry. Radiotherapy has become a Cinderella service because it lacks a champion. We invite the Minister to become that champion.
Finally, enthusiastically we welcome the Government’s focus on earlier cancer diagnosis, but earlier diagnosis will increase demand for radiotherapy. When tumours are spotted earlier and are smaller, they will need more precise and focused treatment—they will need radiotherapy. Twenty thousand people a year are missing out on  radiotherapy already, but if we do not invest now, as more and more cancers are diagnosed earlier, that figure will rocket and this secret scandal will become painfully public.
Our cancer survival rates are distressingly low. Radiotherapy is, after surgery, the most effective cure for cancer—far more so than drugs. It has been left behind in terms of investment for many years under many Governments. This is the moment when that shameful state of affairs must end. People should have the best treatment for their cancer, and where at all possible they should have it close to home—because shorter journeys equals longer lives.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Hon. Members have done well on six minutes, but can we please now aim for five minutes? I am sure that people want to hear what the Minister has to say in response. There is no point in asking questions if there is no time for the Minister to answer.

Kate Hollern: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). There is not one Member in this House whose life has not been touched by cancer. My late partner, John, suffered from it and, sadly, lost his battle two years ago, despite excellent treatment from the Royal Blackburn Hospital. I know and sympathise with many constituents struggling through treatment. Major breakthroughs have been made in radiotherapy in the past 10 years, with modern advanced radiotherapy being more precise, curing more patients and producing fewer side effects to the point where patients can continue to work normally; but when comparing cancer services on a global scale, we see that only one quarter of people in the north-west believe that the NHS offers the best cancer care.
Like John, 47,000 men a year in Britain are found to have prostate cancer, and more than 11,500 a year die from the disease. Last October, the University of Birmingham published an article about a breakthrough in treatment. Previously, it was unclear whether there was any benefit to treating the prostate directly with radiotherapy if the cancer had already spread. The research helps to answer the question and has implications beyond prostate cancer. Clinical trials for the disease found that advanced radiotherapy boosted survival rates by 11% for men whose cancer had spread to nearby lymph nodes or bones. The result is likely to change the care given to around 3,000 men every year in England alone, and could benefit many more around the world.
I am conscious of the time, so I am going to shorten some of my points, but I still feel that they are important. Until now, it was thought that there was no point in treating the prostate itself if the cancer had already spread because it would be—I have heard those words—like shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. However, the study proved the benefit of prostate radiotherapy for those men. Unlike many new drugs for cancer, radiotherapy is a simple and relatively cheap treatment that is readily available in most of the world. However, there are two main issues with access—the tariffs and the availability of modern radiotherapy machines.
As other Members have said, the current tariff disincentivises trusts from saving money because their income depends on the number of treatments. NHS research has shown that treating prostate cancer patients with 20 treatments, rather than 37, was better for patients and would save the NHS in excess of £20 million a year. I hope the Minister will let me and others know when the current situation will stop. When will NHS England allow trusts to use the radiotherapy equipment that they already have to move to even shorter periods of treatment? A period of five treatments has gradually been adopted around the world for large numbers of prostate cancer patients.
Preston is our nearest radiotherapy centre. It is a very short journey from Blackpool to Preston, but Preston is really struggling with workforce, funding and a shortage of oncologists. At least four of the seven machines there are in the second part of their life. There needs to be funding to provide, sustain and maintain the machines. In October 2016, NHS England announced a £130 million investment to spend on upgrading radiotherapy machines. It was welcome, but that money was merely the underspend from the drugs budget. Of the 260 machines in use, approximately 90 needed replacing by the end of 2017. We must ensure that the machines have a sustainable future.
Finally, I want to echo the asks in the “Manifesto for Radiotherapy” for a one-off £250 million investment and an estimated sustained additional £100 million a year to catch up and provide the advanced, modern radiotherapy and IT networks currently needed in the UK. Experts, charities, clinicians and patients are calling for urgent investment in radiotherapy services. Please, Minister, listen, and support the motion before the House.

Eleanor Laing: That was a very courageous speech by the hon. Lady, and I am only sorry that she had such a short time in which to make it.

Chris Bryant: I completely concur with what you just said, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) made a very warm and touching speech, which only reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) that so many people have been touched, in many cases very painfully, by cancer.
My anxiety is that a growing crisis in cancer care is coming in this country. The worst of it is that we may not spot it, because our cancer survival rates are, of course, improving, which is brilliant. Doctors and scientists—pathologists and so on—have done an amazing job in recent years in managing to keep many more people alive, and in this country in particular we have done well, but frankly we started from a very low base compared with other countries in Europe and around the world. I am painfully conscious of that in relation to Wales.
I make no partisan point here, but I will criticise what we are doing in the Welsh NHS at the moment. I do so not out of partisan anger, but simply because we need to get this right. The truth is that cancer survival rates will improve, but not as well as they could do if we managed to get several things right. We have to persuade  more people, particularly from poorer backgrounds, to go to the doctor when they have suspicions about their condition. We must also persuade more doctors, particularly those in poorer backgrounds, to refer people on when they think there might be a suspicion of cancer. It is still worrying that, in my patch in south Wales, we still do not refer on enough people, so that they end up being referred much later, when they are in the later stages of cancer. The most galling thing of all for anybody is when they hear, “Well, it’s just a little bit late. If only you had come six months, three months or even four weeks ago, you would have been at stage 2 or stage 1.”
The truth is that we are failing at the moment in the UK, and particularly in Wales. The diagnostic teams in Wales are in far worse nick than they are in Australia, Poland, Scotland, the best area in England, which is the north-east of England—ironically—and the worst area in England. Nine out of 10 consultant radiologist vacancies in Wales have been unfilled for more than a year. We need 105 more radiologists by 2023 if we are to meet the growing demand for CT and MRI scans, which has risen by a third in the past three years. Thirty six per cent of Welsh consultant histopathologists are over 55 —that is much higher than in the rest of the UK—17% of whom are locums, which means that we are paying agency staff over the odds and therefore wasting NHS money.
UK-wide, only 3% of path labs believe that they are adequately staffed at the moment. This is not to attack the Government in any way, but simply to say that we have to recruit more people. In relation to radiotherapy, the Velindre Cancer Centre in South Wales, a wonderful centre, has a target of seeing and treating 98% with radical radiotherapy within 28 days, but that has not been met in any month in the past year. In January, the figure was just 63%. Why does all this matter? It is because time is of the essence when it comes to cancer. Long waits for biopsy results are absolutely terrifying for the individual, but they may also mean that the treatment is delayed, which makes it less effective than it might be. We could save more lives if we had more people working in these services.

Liz McInnes: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and all the speakers in the debate, especially my brave hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate on this very important subject.
Last week, I visited Cancer Research UK’s event in Parliament to raise awareness of issues around cancer. The one message that I came away with is that cancer treatment is being seriously affected by a lack of diagnostic and radiotherapy staff and equipment. In June this year, the Public Accounts Committee said that the ongoing failure of many hospitals to meet targets for cancer and elective care is unacceptable and called on officials to be more accountable for improving standards.
The Royal College of Radiologists welcomed the main thrust of that report on waiting times in England, which clearly urged increased involvement and oversight from healthcare leaders in NHS England, NHS  Improvement and the Department of Health and Social Care in order to improve waiting times and safeguard the future care of patients. The Society of Radiographers also supports the call for a workforce increase and for investment in equipment and infrastructure to improve connectivity across radiotherapy networks. Although acknowledging that fantastic care is delivered by all professionals across the patient pathway, it highlighted a comprehensive survey on clinical staff across the country, which identified current staff shortages as a barrier to providing effective and efficient cancer treatments and excellent patient experience. It identified many problems, including missed opportunities for service improvement; insufficient capacity to undertake clinical research; the downgrading of patient experience; competition for scarce staff numbers in the local labour market; and decreased staff wellbeing and morale. There is also a great deal of concern about the impact of the loss of the bursary on staff recruitment and retention.
A recent report by the Department of Allied Health Professions at Sheffield Hallam University said that recruitment to therapeutic radiography programmes in the UK has been problematic for several years, but that this appears to have been exacerbated since the 2017 changes in healthcare education funding from bursaries to the standard student loan system for both fees and maintenance. In 2018, several programmes confirmed that they had not recruited to target, and most had needed to go into clearing to recruit students close to the start date of the course. The general trend appears to be a decline in applications, with the added problem of places being awarded at the clearing stage, which poses a risk that students may embark on courses to which they later find they are unsuited, increasing the risk of students dropping out of their courses. If I have just one ask of the Minister, it is that she commissions a full assessment of the impact on allied health professionals of the replacement of bursaries with loans. These skilled, dedicated and highly qualified staff are the unseen backbone of our NHS, and it is vital that patient care does not suffer because of these changes.
In summary, plans to transform radiotherapy provision and the NHS 10-year plan more broadly must be backed with a long-term cancer workforce plan and associated investment. Without this, the NHS and the Government will simply not be able to fulfil their commitment to patients.

Paula Sherriff: I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time for it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said so poignantly this afternoon, cancer is a disease that touches all of us. In my case, it was my lovely dad who was diagnosed with bowel cancer in  his 50s. Thankfully, due to early diagnosis and amazing NHS expertise, he survived. I am truly blessed that he is still with us. However, not everyone is that lucky.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who, with his typical fortitude, eloquence and courage, spoke about how important it is that people seek all-important help upon noticing symptoms.
Of those of us born in the UK after 1960, almost half of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lifetime, and around a quarter of us will receive some form of radiotherapy. These are scary statistics. Radiotherapy is not some obscure treatment that is easy to ignore because it only happens to someone else. Statistically, every fourth person in this room will have had or will at some point need radiotherapy. If nothing else, from a purely self-preservation perspective it is in all our interests to ensure that the provision of radiotherapy is exemplary.
Although the UK has a long history of being active in radiotherapy research due to having a much higher radiotherapy machine capacity and a larger workforce than elsewhere, access to radiotherapy in many parts of northern Europe is now superior to that in the UK. Radiotherapy need in the UK is expected to rise by a further 25% by 2025, but as things stand and as has been demonstrated today, the provision of radiotherapy across the country is patchy at best. Indeed, it is widely held by the experts that up to 24,000 people may be missing out on the radiotherapy they need, resulting in thousands of unnecessary or premature deaths each year. This is simply not good enough.
The advanced radiotherapy techniques of today are the standard techniques of tomorrow, and we need to invest in ensuring that these treatments are easily accessible for all patients across the country as soon as possible. There have been major breakthroughs in radiotherapy in the last 10 years. Technological advances have made radiotherapy treatments safer and more effective, improving cure rates with fewer short and long-term side effects—often to the point where patients can even continue working during the course of their treatments.
Advanced radiotherapy is now an extremely effective treatment in curing cancer when the disease is detected early enough, and for palliating symptoms when a cancer has spread. However, this advanced radiotherapy is not currently available across all of the UK, with many advanced radiotherapy techniques available at only a small number of centres, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out.
Radiotherapy centres across the UK are unevenly distributed, and although it is estimated that radiotherapy is needed to treat more than half of all diagnoses of cancer, access to it in England varies between 25% and 49% of cases, depending on the region. The charity Action Radiotherapy reports that patients understandably want to be able to access the best quality radiotherapy as close to home as possible. Only 57% of the people surveyed said that they would be willing to travel as far as was necessary to get the best radiotherapy treatment available, with many opting for shorter travel times and convenience over quality. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that the best possible treatment is available consistently across the UK, so that every patient is able to access the best high-quality radiotherapy for their individual cancer, without needing to worry about the added stress and inconvenience of lengthy travel times and distances and the associated costs.
However, tackling barriers to access is not only about travel and distance. Having radiotherapy can be very tiring, so greater consideration needs to be given to the quality of support that people receive throughout their  treatment—for example, the provision of free parking and accommodation where needed or allowing people to book all their appointments in advance. Different types of radiotherapy techniques are not always available in the UK centres that are willing and able to deliver those treatments, and evidence suggests that some patients are missing out due to a failure of appropriate commissioning of the specific therapies they require.
One story I have heard about is Robert’s. When examining the surgery versus radiotherapy option, Robert was offered the opportunity to take part in a trial that explored whether, by using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, or SABR—a type of non-invasive therapy—the number of radiotherapy treatments he would receive could be condensed to just five sessions, as opposed to the  20 currently recommended. For obvious and understandable reasons, the chance to have a short course of radiotherapy treatment appealed to Robert, and he underwent five sessions in just one week. It is disappointing, then, that such advanced techniques are available at only a small number of centres, reducing patient access.
As the cross-party manifesto for radiotherapy outlined, £100 million a year is needed to catch up and provide the advanced modern radiotherapy currently needed in the UK. A one-off £250 million would be required to secure equal access for all radiotherapy patients over the next 10 years, with cutting-edge technology. Unfortunately, the commitment that we have from the Government thus far falls far short. As we have heard this afternoon, current spending levels on radiotherapy fall well short of our comparable international partners, and UK cancer survival rates lag behind the European average for nine out of 10 cancers.
As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Rhondda and the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), a further clear and pressing concern is that our current oncology workforce is simply not large enough to meet current demand. There are inadequate plans to increase the workforce to ensure that it will have the capacity for our future needs.
Without drastic and immediate action to remedy the chronic, NHS-wide staffing crisis, we are in no position to deliver the improved radiotherapy treatments that we both deserve and have been promised. Per head of population, the NHS now ranks among the lowest in the western world when it comes to the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds, according to King’s Fund analysis of OECD health data. Analysis from the Health Foundation showed that the number of personnel leaving the NHS because of a poor work-life balance has trebled in the last seven years.
The NHS workforce remains overstretched, overworked and undervalued. Much like the rest of our NHS, our radiotherapy services and staff need transformative actions, not words, to provide the world-class care that patients deserve. To address that, we would like a national plan for the funding of radiotherapy equipment, to enable every patient to have access to the appropriate treatment. Funding models should act to support innovation and research, and should incentivise new and novel ways of working, but the current tariff funding of radiotherapy per fraction is clearly not fit for purpose. It can disincentivise novel ways of working, such as delivering a smaller number of fractions with a more complex technique.
As I said at the start of my speech, as many as 24,000 people are not receiving the radiotherapy they need. That cannot be allowed to continue. We must do more, today, to ensure that all those who need it are able to access not only radiotherapy but the best, high-quality radiotherapy available for their specific cancer. With sufficient investment and development, the UK can develop a world-class, patient-first radiotherapy service. I will do all I can to ensure that we achieve that goal.

Seema Kennedy: I want to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for introducing the debate and all Members who have spoken today, particularly the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), who spoke movingly about her late partner, John. His example lives on through his two beautiful daughters—my beautiful cousins—who, too, have dedicated their lives to public service. I am happy to reassure all Members that I am very happy to meet the all-party group—fingers crossed—and if I fail to address any of the points made today, I will try to address them at that meeting.
Cancer is a priority for this Government, and we have got survival rates up over the last 10 years, but there is a lot more to do. In the long-term plan, we state our aim to have 55,000 more people surviving cancer for five years by 2028. Four in 10 NHS cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy, so clearly radiotherapy is a really important part of the mix. I did not know about that until I met members of the APPG. I want to thank them for the manifesto that they presented to me, which I have read with interest and am happy to respond to.
NHS England announced a £130 million fund, which the hon. Member for Easington mentioned, to start a programme of modernising LINACs and giving patients access to leading-edge technology, regardless of geography. I will come on to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), because we share Rosemere as a cancer centre.
Since 2016, we have seen more than 80 machines either upgraded or replaced, with the aim of giving cancer patients access to the latest technology, regardless of where they live. The long-term plan specifically promises
“Faster, smarter and effective radiotherapy”,
with an aim of providing curative treatment, with fewer side effects and shorter waiting times.
Members mentioned the facilities at the Christie Hospital. Some of my constituents go there as well. The good thing is that previously some people had to leave the country, but at least now people are able to be treated in this country. The first treatment was last December. Work continues on the University College London Hospitals proton beam therapy centre, which we hope will be opened next year.

Chris Bryant: I commend the Minister for everything she has said, but it is slightly easier to put new kit in and build new buildings than it is to develop new staff. The biggest difficulty is with the number of radiologists and the whole staffing element. I wonder whether she could co-operate with colleagues in Wales, because this is a UK-wide issue.

Seema Kennedy: I will come on to talk about workforce, and I will also talk to my officials about meeting my counterparts in the devolved Assemblies, because that keeps coming up. I cannot say anything from the Dispatch Box because I do not know the protocol on that.
Fifteen million pounds has been committed to evaluate treating patients with SABR. There are 25 providers, and it is to treat early non-small cell lung cancer. I know that there are problems with lung cancer treatment. There are only 25 centres at the moment while there is assessment of emerging clinical evidence. NHS England is investing a further £6 million to support the great work that Cancer Research UK is doing on SABR clinical trials. This is regularly reviewed by NHS England’s national specialised commissioning team and was last reviewed during 2016-17. It is expected that access will be reviewed again over the course of 2019-20 to 2020-21.
Several Members talked about the tariff. Radiotherapy services are funded through national prices, linked in the main to the number of radiotherapy fractions delivered. Any change to the income that trusts receive for radiotherapy would therefore require a change to the national tariff. We must continue to ensure that NHS payment mechanisms support the delivery of the most effective treatments. That is why the long-term plan set out NHS England’s commitment to review the national tariff, in particular to ensure that appropriate incentives are in place to encourage providers to deliver the modern techniques that we all need—the ones of today and tomorrow—and that work commenced this year.
The long-term plan also sets out NHS England’s intention to use its capital settlement, which will be negotiated in the upcoming spending review, in part to continue to replace radiotherapy equipment. I will not pre-empt those negotiations, but I think that shows a clear and ongoing financial commitment to modernising NHS radiotherapy.
We have published specifications for operational delivery networks for adult external beam radiotherapy services. That is about the 11 radiotherapy networks, and I have spoken to the hon. Member for Easington specifically about satellite services. The point is that decisions on cancer services need to be taken locally. The networks have been established—the cancer alliances—so I urge all hon. Members to encourage their local services to engage in those, because that is really what we need.
With regard to the workforce, which is mentioned in every debate on cancer, the interim people plan was published recently. The noble Baroness Harding has met the all-parliamentary party group on cancer and is fully apprised of what it is saying. The final people plan will be published later this year.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, because I want to leave the hon. Member for Easington enough time to sum up the debate. This has been an excellent debate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he does with Members across the House. There has been progress, but I know that there is more to do. I am happy to meet the APPG to discuss this further. We need to do more to increase cancer survival rates. We have a very ambitious target. I am happy to work with him and with all hon. Members to ensure that radiotherapy is a vital part of the battle against cancer.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Minister for that considered and helpful response. I can assure her that the spirit of our contributions, and of the all-party parliamentary group, is intended to help, not to hinder progress. We certainly give her credit for the aspiration to improve cancer outcomes and to see a first-class service. We want to see that in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I thank all Members who participated in the debate. The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) highlighted the perverse incentives, which have been identified in the all-party parliamentary group’s inquiries. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned the satellite centres and the number of people being denied life-saving therapy. My hon. Friend—my dear friend—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), in a deeply moving contribution, talked of her personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about the importance of workforce planning and early diagnosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) also mentioned workforce issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) talked about the exciting developments in proton beam therapy at the Christie Hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) gave an excellent response on behalf of the Opposition.
I also want to thank all the staff involved in delivering cancer services. We value the contribution they make—each and every one of them—and we are absolutely dedicated to ensuring that the issues we have raised here are followed through.
I have one point to make on tariffs and perverse incentives. As part of our efforts we have met extensively with NHS England. Addressing that is potentially a quick win for the Government, because it would not involve evaluating new techniques and could be done quickly. My suspicion is that NHS England does not intend to implement that for some time—in years rather than months—so I hope that the Minister will take that up immediately.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the vital role that radiotherapy plays in cancer treatment across the UK with an estimated one in four people needing that treatment at some stage of their life; notes that there is a significant body of expert opinion that up to 24,000 people may be missing out on the radiotherapy they need, resulting in many hundreds of unnecessary or premature deaths; further notes that the UK spend on radiotherapy as a percentage of the overall cancer budget is approximately five per cent which compares badly with most other advanced economies where the percentage varies from nine per cent to 11 per cent; notes that the current commissioning system for radiotherapy is suboptimal as exemplified by a tariff regime which discourages NHS Trusts from implementing advanced modern effective radiotherapy; calls on the Government to provide an immediate up-front £250 million investment in the service, an ongoing extra £100 million per annum investment in personnel and skills and IT, and to introduce a sustainably, centrally and fully funded rolling programme for Linac machine replacements; and further calls on the Government to appoint a single person to oversee the commissioning and implementation of radiotherapy services.

Sanctuary Housing Group

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Milling.)

Mark Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate and thus providing me with an important opportunity to try to hold the Sanctuary Housing Group, which I regard as a highly dysfunctional organisation, to account. As you will soon hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, my remarks have been born from over a decade of frustration in trying to deal with these people as a local MP. To put it bluntly, I have well and truly had enough.
To begin with, Sanctuary has consistently provided a poor maintenance service to many of my constituents over a period of many years. I have had numerous complaints from Sanctuary tenants about shoddy workmanship, missed appointments and a generally off-hand attitude towards them when they complain. To give just one example, a constituent contacted me a few years ago to complain about a broken lift in one of Sanctuary’s sheltered housing units. As my constituent put it in an email:
“I’m writing to complain about the fact that our lift has not been working for the past 10 days, effectively trapping my disabled wife in our first-floor flat. Today, I spoke with the Scheme Manager, who advised me there is no confirmed date for when this problem will be resolved. He also advised me that the service company assessed the lift a month ago and advised Sanctuary of repairs that needed to be done, and the lift broke down three weeks after it was assessed…My wife has been trapped in the lift in her wheelchair six or more times. Sanctuary has known there are issues with the lift and has not responded adequately.”
That is but one example of the poor level of service that Sanctuary provides, but I could spend hours reading very many others into the record. The company’s record is so poor that in March this year it was the subject  of an absolutely scathing Channel 4 “Dispatches” documentary entitled, “New Landlords from Hell”. To try to summarise a half-hour documentary in one sentence, I would say that the group’s record is truly shocking. In many instances, it shows a complete disregard for the welfare, or even the safety, of its tenants. Sanctuary’s so-called board of directors should watch the documentary and then hang their heads in shame. Anybody who wants to know more about this organisation should watch the programme. I suspect they will be appalled, just as I was, by what they see.
It is not as if Sanctuary is a small or under-resourced organisation. I have carefully read its latest annual report. It currently has total assets under management in the order of £4 billion. It is one of the largest registered social landlords in the United Kingdom, with about 100,000 properties currently under management. It is, supposedly, a not-for-profit organisation, yet it made an operating profit of just under £200 million, as recorded in its 2017-18 accounts. The group’s previous chief executive served for some 27 years, but has recently been replaced by a new chief executive, Craig Moule, whose total annual remuneration, including pension contributions and so on, is now in the order of half a million pounds.

Sir David Amess: What?!

Mark Francois: Yes. In comparison, the CEO of L&Q—London and Quadrant Housing Trust—earns about £350,000 in total, the CEO of the Peabody Trust is on about £279,000, and the CEO of Genesis Housing is on approximately £250,000.
Despite previously asking Sanctuary officials for a meeting, I have not yet been offered an audience with the new chief executive, which is a shame, because the first question I would like to ask him is: “How can you justify a salary over three times greater than that paid to the Prime Minister?” I cannot countenance how someone running, essentially, a public sector organisation could be paid such a vast amount for presiding over such chaos.
To give the Minister some idea of the history of all this, I first came across the group some years ago when Rochford District Council decided to transfer its social housing stock to a new registered social landlord established for the purpose, called Rochford Housing Association. The tenants voted in a ballot to transfer to the housing association, which was then shortly taken over by a regional housing association called Hereward, and then in turn by a national organisation, Sanctuary. So I have been dealing with RHA/Hereward/Sanctuary for over a decade as the local MP.
Crucially, the original manifesto for the transfer ballot contained a commitment to build up to 50 additional units of affordable housing a year to assist the council with addressing its housing waiting list. Specifically, the manifesto—I have a copy here, because I saved one—said the following under the heading, “New affordable housing to meet local housing needs”:
“Tenants and the Council have said they want to see new homes in the area for future generations and the Council is committed to working with Housing Associations to provide affordable housing to meet local needs.
Rochford Housing Association working with Hereward Housing will aim to provide at least 50 new affordable homes each year in the Rochford District.”
That was the promise to the tenants before they voted to transfer. Sanctuary took over that commitment when it absorbed Hereward, and promised to honour it when that entity became part of its group, but it has come absolutely nowhere near doing so.
I have had multiple meetings with Sanctuary down the years to try to persuade it to honour that promise, not least to alleviate the considerable pressure on Rochford’s housing list, which has sometimes, unfortunately, meant that the council has had to place families, including those with young children, in highly unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation in nearby Southend.

Sir David Amess: The salaries are absolutely obscene, just like those of senior members of the BBC. My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that someone in my office suffered under these people as a student. Does he agree that, as we look to build a new town somewhere in Essex, these are the last people we want to get their hands on anything we might pursue in meeting our housing needs?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I will demonstrate, it is difficult, I am afraid, to believe anything that this group now says. As we have a Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister sitting on the Front Bench, I will take this opportunity to  absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign for Southend to be made a city. I hope the Minister will take that back to the Department.
I have had a number of meetings with Sanctuary’s head of development, Mr Chris Cole, which have taken on an almost ritualistic aspect, with him repeatedly reading out a list of major housing developments that Sanctuary is either going to be involved with or to develop itself, hardly any of which—with the exception of some very small developments and one development at Canewdon—ever come to fruition.
Sanctuary absolutely assured me several years ago that, to make up its backlog, it would bid aggressively for the social housing component of three large developments in the Rochford District Council area known as Hall Road in Rochford, Rawreth Lane/London Road in Rayleigh, and Malyons Farm in Hullbridge. In each of those instances, despite the company’s £4 billion of assets, it underbid and did not secure the RSL element of any of those developments, which would have represented well over 100 houses in each of the three cases. Basically, Minister, these people talk a good game to your face, but then completely and utterly fail to put their money where their mouth is. That is totally unacceptable on their part.
Moreover, Sanctuary has acquired, or sought to acquire, a number of high-profile brownfield sites across the district, which it has been promising to build on for years. However, in the vast majority of cases, it has not laid one brick on top of another to this day. To take just one example, when I met Mr Cole on Friday 10 May in Sanctuary’s local offices in Rochford, he sought to assure me that Sanctuary was “actively on site” on the old Bullwood Hall Prison site, which was closed some years ago and is now a classic brownfield site. Sanctuary obtained planning permission to build there over a year ago. Quite by chance, and unluckily for Mr Cole, I visited the site the weekend prior to our meeting, and I was therefore amazed when Mr Cole attempted to persuade me that the company was actively building houses there. Even when I told him to his face that I knew it was not, because I had been there and seen that it was not, he still tried to tell me that it was. The Minister is shaking his head. I mention this vignette deliberately, because it is absolutely typical of the dismissive way in which Sanctuary treats elected representatives.
Let me say as an aside that I recently spoke to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who, for the avoidance of doubt, has not seen my speech and is not party to it. She mentioned to me in passing that she too had had unsatisfactory experiences with Sanctuary, but that unfortunately, because of its constitutional status—I shall say more about that in a minute—it was not subject to the remit of the Public Accounts Committee, the most powerful Committee in Parliament. That raises all sorts of governance issues, to which I shall return shortly.
Because of Sanctuary’s appalling record of not keeping to its commitments, the dispute came to a head several years ago when it agreed to sign a “deed of variation, determination and collaboration” via which it undertook to raise its game and make up the considerable backlog of houses to meet the original commitment of 50 a year.   I have here a letter, dated 27 July 2016, from a lady called Emma Keegan, who was at that time Sanctuary’s local managing director. It states, clearly and unequivocally:
“At the forefront of Sanctuary’s commitment is to build homes in Rochford. Part of that is a contractually binding requirement for Sanctuary to deliver the 50 homes a year referred to in the original agreement. Taken over the ten years of the agreement, this will require Sanctuary to build 363 more homes. If we fail to do so the local Council will receive £10,000 for each new home below the target figure of 363, up to a maximum payment of £1 million. This reflects our confidence that we will make good this commitment. We have a development team focused solely on this ambition with commercial resources at their disposal.”
I submit to the Minister that that could not be any clearer, but Sanctuary never got anywhere near it. Time after time it has failed to develop schemes and has given a whole litany of excuses, including desperately trying to blame Rochford District Council for not giving planning permission, suggesting that it was the council’s fault that the houses had not been built and the target—which, incidentally, was due to be met by March 2018, a year ago—had not been delivered.
When I met Sanctuary representatives in May I raised that issue, and was told quite forcefully by Chris Cole that Rochford District Council had “let us off’ the payment because the council had admitted that the planning delays were its own fault. I double-checked that with Mr Shaun Scrutton, the council’s managing director, at a meeting in his office on Friday 5 July. He categorically denied that Rochford had been responsible for any major planning delay, and absolutely insisted that it intended to pursue Sanctuary for the outstanding amount and was considering legal action. He said to me, “I will be having a meeting with our legal team on Monday morning.” Both those men cannot be right, and, to put it mildly, one of them must at least be “badly mistaken”, as the two positions are poles apart.
Part of my purpose in initiating this debate was first to shame Sanctuary into coughing up the million quid that it owes my local council, and secondly, as well as arguing for the money, to argue that it should go on to build the affordable houses that it promised to build in the first place. In short, this is a housing association that, incredibly, seems reluctant to build houses, particularly if that will cost it any money. I read in the newspapers that we have a housing crisis in this country. With registered social housing landlords like Sanctuary, is it any wonder? Basically, these people are a joke, but one that is no longer funny, particularly for those who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a result of their absolute indolence.
Let me give one further example. Sanctuary assured me that it would build up to 100 properties in a site in Rayleigh known as “Timber Grove”, and that it was actively acquiring the site for that purpose. When I double-checked a few days ago, it had still not bought the site, which has lain undeveloped effectively for several years. That is just another example of it being extremely difficult to believe anything that the company now says based on bitter experience of a decade of repeatedly broken promises; it is that bad.
That brings me on to my wider point about the regulation of housing associations. There are good and bad registered social landlords in this country; for instance, one of the other housing associations active in my  constituency is a locally based one called Chelmer Housing Partnership or CHP. If I speak as I find, I personally do not recall ever receiving a single complaint from any of my constituents who are its tenants about the management of a CHP property, although in fairness, the very good new leader of Rochford District Council, Councillor Mike Steptoe, tells me anecdotally that he has had a few complaints about CHP, which has the RSL component at the new development at Hall Road that I mentioned a few minutes ago. In any event, it is a matter of fact that housing associations, some of whose chief executives are extremely well paid—far more than the Prime Minister—are not even subject to freedom of information requests. In short, they are neither fish nor fowl—neither wholly public nor wholly private—and that leads to serious questions about who is really in charge. Partly based on my experience with Sanctuary, I wish to raise with the Minister the serious question of the governance of the sector in general.
There is a lack of an effective regulator to hold housing association boards to account and to make sure their tenants receive the kind of service for which they pay their rent. I would, therefore, like to press the Minister specifically and ask him whether the Department has any proposals to change the governance of housing associations and, in particular, whether it has any plans to bring in any form of new regulator, perhaps focusing on governance and customer service, to try to keep housing associations up to the mark. For the avoidance of doubt that there are some very good registered social landlords in this country, but there are also some very bad ones, and Sanctuary is probably the worst of the entire lot.
This is a sorry tale of an extremely badly run organisation which does not keep its word, which obfuscates and delays, treats publicly elected officials with open contempt, and threatens to bring its entire sector into disrepute. Just as Persimmon Homes has given the private house building sector something of a bad name in recent years—I do not believe the sector really deserves that and I note in passing that the new chief executive of Persimmon, David Jenkinson, is attempting to do something to address it—I believe that Sanctuary threatens to give the whole housing association sector in this country a bad name. That would be a shame, because many RSLs do very good work to provide decent, affordable homes for our constituents to live in, and it is important to put that on the record.
I very much hope therefore that when the board members of Sanctuary read this debate, as I suspect they may, they will take radical action to address their woeful underperformance. I hope they will sack the hopeless Mr Chris Cole and specifically agree to pay Rochford District Council the £1 million that they owe. I also hope they will redouble their efforts to build the affordable housing they promised to build all along and which my constituents so desperately need.
This rolling farce, perpetrated by a failed and broken organisation, has gone on long enough and we now need action, not words. I have known the Minister for years and, as he knows, I have high regard for him. I am sure he will take my constituents’ concerns very seriously—that would be in his nature—and I therefore look forward with considerable interest to his reply on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

Jake Berry: I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I rather enjoyed that contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). It is wonderful to see a passionate constituency Member of Parliament in full flow fighting for his constituents on the Floor of the House. We do not see that often enough in Parliament, and I congratulate him on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House with such force. He has a wonderful constituency, and I know he is proud of being in Essex. I just wonder whether he knows quite as much as many others know about his own constituency, so I thought I would increase his knowledge of it before I come on to deal with the debate.
My right hon. Friend may be aware, and all Members will want to know, that next week we will have County Flags Day, on which the Essex county flag will be flying proudly in Parliament Square at the moment of national unity when we see our new Prime Minister installed in No. 10. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, other county flags will also be available, if they are registered with the Flag Institute. There will be 51 in total, including the Union flag showing the awesome foursome that makes up our United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that the Minister has clarified that point, but there was no need. As long as he mentioned the Essex county flag, he was doing very well.

Jake Berry: There are others available. The flag of Lancashire will, of course, be proudly flying, and the flag of Staffordshire as well. I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend knows the millennium clock in Rayleigh in his constituency, which was created in a competition for schoolchildren. One of the shields that appears on the clock was designed by no less a person than Sarah Morgan from my private office in the Department, who is currently sitting in the Box. She proudly tells us about it at every opportunity, and she has also said that one of her ambitions is to appear in Hansard. She has achieved that ambition today.
I will now move on to the content of my right hon. Friend’s debate. Importantly, he spoke about Sanctuary Housing and some of the things he said are a real cause for concern. He will understand that many of those contracts are private commercial matters between his local authority and the housing association, and that disputes should, in the first event, be resolved by the parties to those agreements. However, I was extremely concerned, as a Member of this House and a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to hear of that organisation’s dismissive attitude towards Members of Parliament who are doing their job by raising the concerns of their constituents. That is completely unacceptable, not just from Sanctuary but from every social housing provider. We are sent to the House to fight for our constituents, and my right hon. Friend is doing a wonderful job this evening. I call on all social landlords, in a positive way, to engage actively with their Members of Parliament, because it is often us that people come to talk to when things are going wrong, and if that route is closed down, Members  of Parliament will not be able to do their job and the housing associations and social landlords will also not be able to do theirs.
Many of the points my right hon. Friend raised are matters of real concern, and I hope that Sanctuary will read the Hansard of this debate very carefully. Serious matters have been raised, and they should be dealt with at local level, but it is also a national issue and a matter of concern to all of us that people should engage with Members of Parliament with courtesy and respect and that the issues we raise should be taken extremely seriously. If they are not, we are going to see real problems in social housing sector, and I hope that Sanctuary will listen to the comments I make on behalf of the Department today.
On the issues my right hon. Friend raised about the changes we are going to see, particularly with the regulators, his concern is I think shared by all. We have to find a way to put the tenant voice and the tenant experience absolutely at the heart of our social housing providers. He, I know, is aware that the Government have recently concluded a consultation on the Green Paper; in fact, it concluded in November. We were delighted as a Department, but slightly overwhelmed, by the number of responses we had. Many of those responses, particularly in a world post that appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower, were about how we as a Government can ensure that tenants’ voices are never lost when it comes to social housing. If we think about some of the consequences we saw on that night just over two years ago and about some of the missed opportunities to support the people of Grenfell Tower, I think we would agree that we should all take this extremely seriously. I look forward to the Government responding in detail both to the Green Paper and all the consultation responses, but I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that the tenant voice and the tenant experience will absolutely be at the heart of what we seek to achieve. That may well include changes to the role of the regulator, although I am not in a position this evening to give any further detail on that.
On a more positive note, I think we should take the opportunity of tonight’s debate to celebrate the work of social landlords and the housing sector more generally in building the homes that our constituents need. In his speech, my right hon. Friend talked about CHP, a local landlord with which he has had a good experience. That may not be universally shared, but it is an accolade that he says he has had no complaints about it. I think that shows how, where there is a great relationship between a council, a Member of Parliament, the tenants and a housing association, they can get things right.
The reason why we must celebrate the contribution of this sector is that we need to ensure and to focus on the fact that, by the mid-2020s, we will be delivering 300,000 homes a year. That is what our country needs, and what this Government are focused on. A good portion of those homes will be delivered by the social housing sector. I was delighted that the Prime Minister announced in September 2018 that we are going to make another £2 billion long-term funding pilot available for social landlords, starting in 2022, so they can get on with the job—to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments—of building homes, building communities and ensuring that our constituents, each and every one of them, have the opportunity to own their own home or have a home to call their own for which they pay an   affordable rent. That is why I hope my right hon. Friend will join me, the specifics of Sanctuary aside, in celebrating the extraordinary contribution of social landlords  more generally.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.